«my   ^ 


BX  98A1  .A43  1849 
Allen,  Joseph  Henry,  1820- 
1898. 

Ten  discourses  on  orthodoxy 


DISCOUESES 


TEN 


DISCOURSES 


ON 


ORTHODOXY, 


BY 


JOSEPH  HENRY  ALLEN, 

PASTOR     OF    THE     UNITARIAN     CHURCH,     WASHINGTON. 


BOSTON: 
\VM.   CROSBY   AND  H.  P.  NICHOLS. 

WASHINGTON:    TAYLOR  AND  MAURY. 

1849. 


^p-^/ff-d- 


Entered  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1849,  by 

Wm.  Crosby  and    H.  P.  Nichols, 

in  the  Clerk's  Office  of  the  District  Court  of  the  District  of  Massachusetts. 


CAMBRIDGE: 

METCALF  AND  COMPANY, 

PRINTERS  TO  THE   UNIVERSITY. 


NOTE. 


In  revising  these  Discourses  for  the  press,  I  have 
made  very  few  references  to  texts  and  authorities, 
desiring  to  occupy  the  plain  and  well-known  ground 
of  the  fundamental  questions  of  theological  contro- 
versy, and  relying  more  on  reason  than  on  erudi- 
tion to  confirm  my  statements.  It  would  be  easy 
to  give  an  appearance  of  the  latter,  far  beyond  my 
claims.  Orthodoxy  I  regard,  not  merely  as  a  false 
or  defective  system,  but  as  standing  in  the  way 
of  a  more  broad  and  positive  conception  of  Chris- 
tianity. Its  actual  existence  and  power  is  my  rea- 
son for  treating  it  as  an  individual  thing,  or  for 
treating  of  it  at  all.  And  I  have  preferred  that 
this  volume  should  be  a  summary  (and  even  popu- 
lar) criticism  of  the  present  condition  of  theological 
speculation,  and  a  preparatory  rather  than  a  final 
statement  of  the  Christian  spiritual  doctrine. 

J.  H.  A. 

Washington,  D.  C,  April,  1849. 


CONTENTS. 


-♦- 


DISCOURSE    I. 

PACK 


ORTHODOX    THEORY    OF    CHRISTIANITY 1 

DISCOURSE    II. 

GENERAL    OBJECTIONS    TO    ORTHODOXY 21 

DISCOURSE    III. 

THE    TRINITY .         43 

DISCOURSE    IV. 

THE    DEITY    OF    CHRIST 69 

'     DISCOURSE    V. 

THE    VICARIOUS   ATONEMENT 89 

DISCOURSE    VI. 

DEPRAVITY  OF  HUMAN  NATURE .113 


VUl  CONTENTS. 

DISCOURSE    VII. 

ETERNAL   PUNISHMENT 


137 


DISCOURSE   VIII. 

4 

SCRIPTURE    INFALLIBILITY •       159 

DISCOURSE    IX. 

HISTORY    AND    POSITION    OF    ORTHODOXY 183 

DISCOURSE   X. 

LIBERAL    CHRISTIANITY .•      204 


DISCOURSE    I 


ORTHODOX  THEORY  OF  CHRISTIANITY. 

THIS    I    CONFESS   UNTO    THEE,    THAT    AFTER    THE   WAV    WHICH    THEY 
CALL   HERESY,    SO   WORSHIP    I    THE    GOD    OF   MY    FATHERS. -;- ActS 

xxiv.  14. 

It  is  my  intention,  in  these  Discourses,  to  examine 
several  of  the  principal  doctrines  of  Orthodoxy,  so 
called,  and  to  discuss  their  claim  to  our  belief  and 
respect.  I  shall  have  occasion  to  dissent  from  many 
things  taught  in  the  popular  Christianity  of  our  day,  and 
to  protest  as  strongly  as  I  can  against  what  I  think  false 
and  hurtful  in  it ;  but  I  shall  hope  to  do  it  with  proper 
feeling  and  Christian  courtesy.  Our  religious  belief  lies 
at  the  bottom  of  all  our  belief.  Let  us  deal  with  it  frankly 
and  sincerely,  —  never  shrinking  from  just  criticism,  nor 
refusing  to  give  a  reason  for  the  faith  that  is  in  us. 

And  while  I  shall  examine  with  the  most  perfect 
freedom  into  the  prevalent  theology  of  the  churches 
about  us,  I  trust  I  shall  say  nothing  in  an  irreverent  and 
scornful  spirit.  Firm  believer  myself  in  a  Christian 
faith  at  heart,  a  Christian  life  in  truth  and  love,  wherein 
all  believers  are  reconciled  to  God  through  his  spirit  and 
1 


ORTHODOX    THEORY 


and  his  Son,  I  cannot,  if  I  understand  myself,  say  any 
thing  to  distress  and  alienate  any  religious  mind,  or 
widen  the  breaches  of  the  Christian  Church,  or  un- 
settle in  any  man's  mind  that  fundamental  faith.  What 
I  ask  is  a  fair  hearing  from  those,  if  they  be  here,  who 
differ  from  me  ;  pledging  myself  to  respect  as  sacred 
the  sentiment  of  religious  reverence  in  every  bosom, 
and  to  perform  my  task  as  a  high  duty  which  I  owe 
to  Christ  and  the  Church.  My  obligation  is  first  to 
those  who  have  so  long  sustained  here  a  dissenting 
religious  body,  —  to  vindicate  their  position,  and  set 
forth  the  views  and  convictions  which  have  sustained 
them  thus  far  ;  next,  to  our  religious  community,  among 
whom  it  is  the  privilege  and  duty  of  my  office  to  pro- 
claim' the  high  and  animating  faith  of  a  Liberal  Chris- 
tianity. It  is  due  to  both,  to  give  an  account  of  our 
belief,  and  to  state  the  reasons  which  justify  us  in 
rejecting  creeds  more  popular  than  ours,  and  sustaining 
an  independent  church. 

The  word  Orthodoxy  I  use  neither  for  praise  nor 
blame.  Its  meaning  is  simply  "right  opinion"  ;  that 
is,  that  opinion,  or  set  of  opinions,  which  is  held  to  be 
right  by  the  majority  in  any  time  and  place.  Its  op- 
posite is  not  falsehood,  but  dissent,  or  liberalism,  or 
heresy  ;  and  it  was  in  opposition  to  the  popular  belief, 
or  Jewish  orthodoxy,  of  his  day  that  Paul  says,  "  After 
the  way  which  they  call  heresy,  so  worship  I  the  God 
of  my  fathers."  There  are  orthodoxy  and  heresy  in 
other  things  as  well  as  in  this  ;  and  you  will  readily 
recall  them  in  many  of  our  common  forms  of  speech. 
We  apply  these  terms  to  what  is  received  and  held 
established,  or,  on  the  other  hand,  novel  and  innovating  ; 
to  methods  of  art  and   science  ;   to  maxims  of  trade  ; 


OF    CHRISTIANITY.  6 

to  political  opinions  ;  to  every  thing  where  there  is  a 
tendency  to  split  into  two  parties,  —  the  holders-fast 
and  the  movers-on,  the  men  of  habit  and  the  men  of 
theory,  conserv^ative  and  reformer,  quietist  and  radical, 
old  school  and  new  school.  There  is  the  orthodox 
(or  received)  creed  of  democracy,  and  the  heretical. 
There  are  old  school  and  new  school  Calvinists  ;  ex- 
treme right  and  left  in  every  sect  ;  even  Unitarian  "  or- 
thodoxy "  matched  against  heresies  without  a  name. 

So  the  distinction  is  a  very  simple  and  common  one, 
implying  neither  reproach  nor  blame  on  either  side,  only 
difference  of  mental  habit.  As  applied  to  religious  be- 
lief, we  use  the  word  Orthodoxy  to  designate  the  prev- 
alent system  of  modern  Protestant  theology,  —  that 
which  we  find  in  most  of  the  neighbouring  churches,  — 
that  which  is  sometimes  called  Evangelical  Christianity. 
This  is  what  I  have  taken  in  hand  to  consider.  And 
my  object  in  the  present  Discourse  is  to  give  as  fair  and 
unprejudiced  a  statement  as  I  can  of  what  it  is.  One 
would  not  spend  his  time  and  strength  in  fighting  in  the 
dark  ;  and  so,  to  prevent  any  misunderstanding,  I  be- 
gin with  an  exposition  of  it.  The  reasons  for  rejecting 
it  shall  appear  afterwards. 

Of  the  degrees  or  forms  in  which  we  find  it,  the  first 
is  that  of  the  sentiment  and  religious  feeling  simply. 
It  takes  for  granted  the  received  opinions,  and  makes 
them  the  basis  of  devotion  and  faith.  It  raises  no 
questions,  and  harbours  no  doubts.  It  believes  implicitly 
what  is  taught  in  the  creed  or  hymn,  without  scruple  or 
cavil.  It  finds  no  difficulty  in  any  of  the  ordinary  re- 
ligious forms  of  speech,  — no  difficulty  in  the  Trinity, 
the  Atonement,  the  double  nature  of  Christ,  the  awful 
penalty  denounced    on   unbelief,  —  simply  because  the 


ORTHODOX    THEORY 


intellect  deals  not  with  them,  but  only  the  heart.  It 
finds  joy  and  peace  in  believing,  though  it  be  the  most 
astounding  and  incomprehensible  dogmas.  Religion 
comes  home  to  the  faith  and  love,  and  wakens  no 
troublesome  process  of  reason.  With  Orthodoxy  such 
as  this,  we  have  no  controversy,  no  quarrel.  God 
forbid  we  should  seek  to  uproot  the  affectionate  faith 
of  the  heart  in  any  one,  or  tear  away  from  the  living 
vine  even  the  rudest  trunk,  about  which  its  tendrils  may 
be  clasped. 

Again,  there  is  the  mystic  and  speculative  Orthodoxy, 
—  which  has  got  beyond  the  bounds  of  distinct  and 
logical  thought,  and  deals  with  vague  conceptions  and 
metaphysical  problems,  and  clothes  its  fancy  in  the  garb 
of  the  popular  belief.  German  mystic  and  American 
transcendentalist  profess  a  sort  of  trinity,  and  bor- 
row some  of  the  phraseology  of  Christian  dogmatics  ; 
but  though  their  creed  may  wear  the  livery  and  speak 
in  the  dialect  of  the  churches,  it  has  not  the  same  mean- 
ing. The  churches  disown  it  ;  and  I  have  nothing 
either  way  to  do  with  it.  As  I  shall,  perhaps,  have 
occasion  to  show  in  several  examples,  it  is  only  one 
of  the  forms  of  belief  held  by  many  Unitarians,  — 
only  one  sort  of  heresy,  disguised  in  the  formularies 
of  the  Church. 

But  besides  these  two,  the  Orthodoxy  of  sentiment 
and  that  of  metaphysics,  there  is  a  third,  —  the  Ortho- 
doxy of  sects  and  creeds.  It  is  this  with  which  I 
have  now  to  do.  I  shall  deal  with  it  simply  as  an 
intellectual  system,  demanding  men's  assent,  and  offer- 
ing to  the  intellect  its  proofs.  It  claims  to  be  a  true 
account,  the  only  true  account,  of  the  method  of  sal- 
vation, as  shown  in  Christianity.      It  claims  to  rest  on 


OF    CHRISTIANITY. 


Scriptural  authority,  and  to  give  demonstration  from 
the  record  for  every  assertion  and  every  dogma.  It 
claims  to  be  the  system  or  ''  plan  of  salvation  "  existing 
in  the  mind  of  God  before  the  world  was  ;  implied  in 
every  word  of  the  primitive  history  of  mankind  ;  tes- 
tified by  witnesses  from  age  to  age  ;  vouched  by  the 
whole  vast  apparatus  of  prophecy  and  inspiration  and 
miracle  ;  displayed  in  the  life  of  Christ,  and  declared 
from  first  to  last  by  his  apostles  ;  the  only  system  safe 
to  believe  and  know  ;  perfectly  and  infallibly  true  ;  the 
one  and  only  method  by  which  man  could  have  been 
saved  from  sin  and  the  horrors  of  eternal  death  ;  to 
deny  which  is  to  be  utterly  and  for  ever  lost. 

I  beg  it  may  be  distinctly  borne  in  mind,  that  this 
system  is  all  that  I  have  just  described^  or  else  that, 
as  Orthodoxy,  it  is  nothing.  There  is  no  midway  be- 
tween these  two  extremes.  Either  it  is  the  infallible 
and  only  saving  truth,  or  it  is  merely  one  out  of  numer- 
ous methods  of  Scriptural  interpretation,  —  one  out  of  a 
thousand  forms  of  human  speculation.  Either  belief 
in  it  is  absolutely  necessary  to  save  us  from  God's 
wrath  and  curse,  or  it  has  no  other  merit  than  as  it 
commends  itself  to  one  and  another  mind  seeking 
truth.  Either  the  most  devoted  love  to  God,  the 
purest  self-sacrificing  love  of  man,  the  utmost  earnest- 
ness of  spirit  and  integrity  of  life,  —  honor  that  shrinks 
from  the  smallest  stain,  and  piety  that  lifts  the  soul  in 
sweetest  intercourse  to  heaven,  —  all  are  nothing,  are  a 
mockery  and  false  show,  an  ignorant  and  unacceptable 
offering,  without  the  addition  of  this  form  of  faith  ;  or 
rnan  can  demand,  and  God  has  enjoined,  nothing  more 
than  sincerity  of  mind  and  integrity  of  life,  leaving 
the  form  of  opinion  to  each  man's  unfettered  choice. 
1* 


ORTHODOX   THEORY 


This  or  that  system  of  belief  it  may  be  a  higher  priv- 
ilege to  have,  —  a  better  basis  of  character,  more  con- 
ducive to  strength  and  spirituahty  of  soul  ;  but  this  is 
not  the  sort  of  merit  on  which  the  claim  of  Orthodoxy 
rests.  It  allows  no  comparison,  it  makes  no  compro- 
mise. It  is  nothing,  or  it  is  all.  If  I  have  it,  I  may 
trust,  humbly  indeed,  but  still  hopefully,  in  the  grace 
of  God  for  acceptance  and  salvation.  If  I  have  it 
not,  no  prayer  can  be  heard,  no  penitence  available, 
no  purity  of  life  a  ground  of  pardon  or  hope,  no  tes- 
timony of  the  conscience  any  thing  but  a  flattery  and 
a  lie.  We  may  live  and  work  and  pray  and  do  deeds 
of  charity  together,  but  the  grave  is  an  eternal  barrier. 
No  common  trust,  no  heavenly  companionship,  in  the 
world  beyond,  can  be  between  the  heretic  and  the  true 
believer.  To  my  terrified  spirit  at  the  last  great  hour, 
to  the  stricken  hearts  of  my  believing  friends,  there 
is  no  hope  for  me,  but  the  fearful  looking  forward  to 
infinite  anguish  and  the  flames  of  eternal  fire,  from  the 
vindictive  justice  of  Almighty  God  ! 

Let  it  be  remembered,  then,  that  the  system  of  Ortho- 
doxy taught  in  most  of  our  churches  says  or  implies 
all  this,  in  virtue  of  what  it  claims  to  be.  All  this 
tremendous  alternative  is  taken  for  granted  in  every 
argument  and  appeal.  Listen  to  the  language  of  creeds, 
and  sermons,  and  tracts,  and  popular  religious  treatises, 
and  you  will  find  I  have  only  understated  its  terrible 
significancy.  Softened  down  by  this  man's  gentle 
temper,  refined  and  spiritualized  by  that  man's  sweet 
and  devout  heart,  it  is  yet  by  implication  all  that  I 
have  said.  As  a  system  it  is  imperative,  absolutely. 
It  asks  and  gives  no  quarter.  To  accept  it  is  to  share 
a  hope  of  life.       To  reject  it  is  certain  and    unending 


OF    CHRISTIANITY. 


death.  If  Orthodox  teachers  shrink  from  stating  this 
alternative,  they  are  false  to  the  profession  of  their 
creed.  Either  they  dare  not  confess  its  full  meaning, 
or  else  their  gentler  feeling  has  compelled  them,  wiih- 
out  knowing  it,  to  desert  that  creed,  and  stand  upon 
liberal  ground. 

Now  what  is  this  system  of  belief,  which  offers  so 
absolute  and  haughty  an  alternative  .''  I  shall  endeavour 
to  state  it  clearly  and  distinctly,  without  prejudice 
or  distortion,  while  T  trace  it  unflinchingly  to  its  com- 
plete results.  Its  only  merit  is  as  a  system.  Like 
an  arch,  it  must  be  complete  or  it  is  nothing.  Shake 
one  stone,  and  it  all  falls  together.  It  has  been  con- 
structed and  defended  by  minds  of  iron  logic,  —  by 
men  who  boldly  followed  out  their  propositions,  step  by 
step,  confident  of  the  first  principles  they  assumed, 
and  recoiling  at  no  consequence  they  were  conducted 
to.  We  respect  their  mental  power,  while  we  dissent 
from  their  creed.  We  admire  their  intellectual  honesty 
and  courage,  but  steadily  refuse  and  disclaim  the  results 
they  reached  and  so  resolutely  proclaimed. 

The  system  called  Orthodox  or  Evangelical  is  in  the 
main  that  taught  by  Calvin,  and  is  comprised  essentially 
in  six  leading  points  of  faith.  Many  others  are  included 
in  it  besides  ;  but  they  are  subordinate,  and  will  come 
up  incidentally.  These  make  the  framework  ;  and 
each  ought  to  be  examined  on  its  own  particular  merit, 
while  still  regarded  as  an  essential  feature  of  the  scheme. 
I  propose  to  take  them  up,  one  by  one,  and  consider 
them  in  order,  with  such  method  and  fulness  as  they 
deserve.  They  are,  the  Trinity,  the  Deity  of  Christ, 
the  Vicarious  Atonement,  Depravity  of  Human  Nature, 
Eternal  Punishment,  and  the  Infallible  Authority  of  the 
Scriptures. 


8  ORTHODOX  THEORY 

Each  of  these  six  is  necessary  to  all  the  rest.  With- 
out the  Trinity,  there  would  be  no  basis  for  the  system, 
—  no  theory  of  the  Divine  nature  to  which  it  might 
correspond.  Without  the  Deity  of  Christ,  the  system 
is  stripped  of  its  dignity,  the  work  of  redemption 
takes  a  wholly  different  meaning,  and  the  whole  great 
scheme  resolves  itself  into  a  barren  juggle  of  words. 
The  Atonement  is  needful  to  the  system,  because  it  is 
the  system,  —  the  nucleus,  the  key-sione,  the  main 
idea,  to  which  all  the  rest  are  adjuncts.  The  native 
depravity  of  man,  exposing  him  to  God's  just  curse, 
explains  the  reason  why  such  a  work  of  redemption 
was  called  for.  Endless  penalty  annexed  to  unbelief  is 
the  only  motive  strong  enough  to  command  Christ's, 
sacrifice  on  the  one  part,  or  man's  assent  on  the  other. 
And,  finally,  the  complete  inspiration  of  the  Scriptures 
furnishes  the  only  possible  test  and  the  only  sufficient 
proof. 

As  T  have  said,  its  merit  as  a  system  lies  in  its  com- 
pleteness, —  in  its  being  fully  rounded  out  and  compact 
in  every  part.  It  is  this  more  than  any  other  thing 
which  makes  its  recommendation  to  a  certain  class  of 
minds,  and  which  has  bound  it  so  firmly  in  the  intel- 
lectual habits  of  a  great  portion  of  the  Protestant 
Church.  It  will  be  my  duty,  in  respect  both  to  the 
claims  it  presents  and  the  hold  it  has  on  our  com- 
munity, to  examine  it  step  by  step,  and  give  in  detail 
our  reasons  for  rejecting  it.  But  first  I  must  give  a 
succinct  view  of  it  as  a  whole,  showing  how  its  main 
features  are  developed  one  by  one  from  a  few  leading 
statements  or  assertions  ;  and  next  submit  some  general 
considerations,  touching  it  as  a  whole  and  not  in  parts. 
These  two  points  will  occupy  the  present  and  the  fol- 


OF    CHKISTIAIVUTY. 


lowing  Discourse.  In  these  I  shall  not  speak  of  the 
proofs,  —  leaving  them  till  I  come  to  particulars,  — 
meanwhile  contenting  myself  with  a  more  general  and 
simple  exposition. 

It  will  not  make  much  difference  what  point  we  start 
from,  so  only  it  be  in  that  circle  of  ideas.  According 
to  the  character  and  habit  of  our  mind,  we  might  begin 
with  the  character  of  God,  or  the  condition  of  man  ; 
with  the  nature  of  evil,  or  the  history  of  the  Fall  ;  with 
the  outward  proof  of  misery,  or  the  inward  proof  of 
sin,  or  the  Scriptural  proof  of  redemption,  or  the  his- 
torical proof  of  man's  need  of  such  a  revelation  ;  with 
speculations  on  the  agency  of  evil  spirits,  or  on  the 
freedom  of  the  human  will.  Either,  I  say,  may  be 
taken  as  the  point  of  departure,  and  from  either  the 
entire  theory  may  be  developed.  For  its  merit,  as  I 
remarked,  is  as  a  work  of  logic.  Assume  either  point, 
and  the  rest  will  find  their  places.  Start  from  any  one, 
and  the  rest  will  easily  follow. 

In  tracing  briefly  the  course  of  reasoning  by  which 
the  system  is  held  together,  I  prefer,  for  clearness'  sake, 
to  begin  with  the  moral  condition  of  man^  as  viewed  by 
the  eye  of  God.  This,  it  seems  to  me,  gives  the  most 
plausible  and  tangible  point,  and  leads  most  easily  to 
all  the  others.  Besides,  it  appeals,  as  it  were,  to  the 
human  consciousness  of  every  man.  Our  theory  of 
man's  condition  is  not  like  an  abstract  dogma,  requiring 
labored  proof.  Scripture  may  illustrate  it,  may  bring 
it  before  the  mind,  and  may  be  our  final  strongest  reason 
for  adhering  to  it  ;  but,  whencesoever  derived,  it  is  after 
all  our  previous  assumption,  —  the  ground  we  take  to 
build    on, — a    tacit  or  gratuitous  assumption,  perhaps, 


10  ORTHODOX    THEORY 

but  one  that  unavoidably  shapes  and  tempers  all  our 
thought  on  religious  things. 

I.  Orthodoxy,  then,  begins  by  presupposing  that 
mankind  is  in  a  condition  of  rebellion  against  God, 
and  exposed  to  his  everlasting  wrath  and  curse.  That 
is,  such  is  man's  condition,  aside  from  all  considerations 
of  the  office  of  Christ,  which  is  to  redeem  him  and 
remove  the  curse.  Naturally,  by  himself,  he  is  capable 
of  no  good  thing  ;  can  make  no  acceptable  offering  to 
God  ;  stands  always  in  need  of  forgiveness  for  the 
infinite  wrong  in  his  own  soul  ;  cannot  trust  his  reason 
or  conscience,  through  an  innate  evil  tendency,  that 
warps  his  mind  aside  from  good,  and  alienates  him  from 
his  Creator.  Left  to  himself,  he  must  inevitably  perish. 
The  destiny  of  unending  happiness  and  advancement, 
for  which  he  seems  to  be  calculated  if  we  consider 
some  of  his  native  affections  and  capacities,  has  been 
forfeited  ;  and," taking  him  in  his  actual  state,  he  is  no 
better  than  an  outcast  and  a  rebel.  Besides,  being 
under  the  government  of  a  Being  infinitely  just  and  holy, 
every  sinful  act  bears  the  brand  of  infinite  guilt,  and 
is  justly  visited  with  an  infinite  penalty.  He  may  have 
moral  sense  to  know  his  danger  and  calamity,  but  can- 
not of  himself  devise  a  remedy.  With  no  intercessor 
to  plead  before  the  bar  of  the  offended  justice  of  Heav- 
en, there  is  no  way  to  reach  and  make  appeal  to  the 
Divine  mercy.  Behold,  therefore,  man,  in  his  natural 
estate,  at  once  the  greatest  and  most  wretched  of  God's 
creation  !  No  certain  truth,  no  immortal  hope,  no 
escape  from  the  threatened  doom  of  vengeance,  no 
access  to  the  presence  and  favor  of  righteous  Heaven  ! 

But  how  could  so  frightful  a  calamity  have  fallen  upon 
the  human  race  .''     It  is  against  all  the  idea  we  have  of 


OF    CHRISTIANITY.  11 

God,  —  against  the  whole  of  the  account  given  of  him 
in  the  Scriptures,  —  to  suppose  that  he  could  have 
designed  from  the  first  such  a  doom  for  any  of  his 
creatures.  It  would  be  blasphemy  to  think  he  would 
create  beings  capable  of  joy,  and  torment  them  delib- 
erately with  hopeless  and  unending  woe.  The  hardiest 
advocate  of  God's  omnipotent  right  could  not  venture 
such  a  plea.  It  would  be  to  confound  and  abolish 
every  grateful  and  holy  thought  of  God.  It  would  be 
to  dethrone  him,  the  all-wise  and  merciful,  and  put  a 
malignant  devil  in  his  place,  —  giving  the  infinite  majesty 
of  the  universe  to  the  only  evil,  instead  of  the  only 
good. 

How,  then,  came  man  into  this  condition,  since  it 
could  not  have  been  his  first  estate  ?  To  account  for 
it,  there  must  have  been  a  Fall,  which  drew  down  the 
entire  human  race,  —  an  original  sin  of  the  first  man, 
whose  guilt  all  share  in  by  inheritance.  For  his  sake 
and  in  his  name  earth  and  mankind  were  visited  with 
a  curse,  which  no  merely  human  power  can  expiate. 
He  cut  himself  off,  as  it  were,  by  a  wilful  act,  from  the 
love  of  God,  and  could  entail  only  evil  on  his  posterity. 

But  the  first  man  was  created  upright  and  free  from 
guilt ;  free  to  sin,  it  is  true,  but  free  to  righteousness. 
Nothing  in  his  nature  then  enticed  him  to  sin  ;  no  fatal 
propensity  weighed  on  him  then,  to  overbear  and  par- 
alyze his  will.  Guilt  was  brought  upon  him  from  a 
higher  sphere  of  being.  He  was  tempted,  and  he 
fell.  The  great  Rebel  Angel,  who  had  already  drawn 
away  a  third  part  of  heaven's  host  from  their  allegiance, 
found  man  in  paradise,  where  the  goodness  of  God  had 
placed  him,  and,  moved  with  jealousy  and  spite  that 
another  should  inherit  the  blessing  he  had  lost,  plotted 


12  ORTHODOX    THEORY 

his  downfall.  The  simple  and  credulous  innocence  of 
the  first  pair  was  no  match  for  the  crafty  and  deceitful 
arts  of  Satan.  The  pledge  of  Divine  favor  was  for- 
feited. The  fatal  step  was  taken.  The  forbidden  fruit 
they  plucked  and  ate.  And  from  that  hour,  from  that 
one  inexpiable  act,  dates  the  downfall,  the  rebellion,  the 
misery  of  the  human  race.  We  have  no  claim  to  win 
back  the  inheritance  they  lost.  No  virtue  of  ours  could 
retrieve  that  guilt,  or  give  us  a  claim  to  any  special  fa- 
vor. And  so  we  are  all  lost.  Though  we  shared  not 
the  guilt,  we  share  the  penalty  ;  as  from  a  dissolute  and 
spendthrift  father  is  left  but  a  heritage  of  beggary  to  his 
child. 

And  this  is  not  the  whole  story  of  that  loss  and  fall. 
For  by  that  act  man  has  deliberately  renounced  his  alle- 
giance to  God,  and  surrendered  himself  to  Satan,  the 
enemy  of  God.  Hence  the  dominion  of  evil  spirits, 
and  the  whole  array  of  Satanic  agency.  Evermore  we 
are  beset  with  a  host  of  spiritual  foes.  The  great  Ad- 
versary himself,  with  power  and  energy  only  less  than 
God's,  is  perpetually  seeking  to  draw  men  farther  away 
from  him.  Every  temptation  to  desert  our  better  pur- 
poses, every  whispered  thought  of  sin,  every  feeling  of 
envy  and  malice,  every  enticement  of  sensual  pleasure, 
is  part  of  that  terrible  system  of  treachery,  or  ambus- 
cade, or  open  violence,  by  which  the  infernal  spirit 
seeks  to  confirm  his  power.  Through  his  evil  influence, 
men  turned  of  old  from  serving  the  true  and  only  God 
to  worship  idols  or  devils.  By  him  was  set  in  motion 
that  fearful  tide  of  crime,  the  lust,  and  falsehood,  and 
revenge,  and  craft,  and  enmity,  that  have  ravaged  and 
made  waste  the  earth.  And  without  a  special  miracu- 
lous deliverance,  we  are  all  bound  over,  hand  and  foot, 


OF    CHRISTIANITY.  18 

without  resource  or  hope,  in  bondage  to  him,  —  to 
serve  him  in  pride  and  folly  and  wickedness  on  earih,  to 
serve  him  in  chains  and  darkness  for  ever  in  the  world 
below.  Such  is  man's  terrible  condition,  such  his  un- 
ending doom. 

II.  But  it  is  impossible  that  God  should  look  with  in- 
difference upon  this  wretched  fate  of  man.  Created  in 
his  image,  pronounced  his  child  and  the  head  of  his 
creation,  God's  love  yet  yearns  towards  man,  and  will- 
ingly would  he  deliver  him.  And  here  comes  in  that 
conflict  of  the  Divine  attributes  which  makes  necessary 
the  great  redemption  by  the  Atoning  Sacrifice.  On  the 
one  hand,  God's  mercy  cannot  willingly  consent  that  his 
child  should  be  for  ever  in  this  state  of  abject  and  hope- 
less slavery  ;  but,  on  the  other  hand,  stern  and  inexora- 
ble justice  cannot  overlook  the  fact,  that  by  his  rebellion 
and  enmity  towards  God  he  has  forfeited  all  his  claim 
upon  Divine  compassion.  Again  behold  the  terrible  law 
of  his  condition.  To  God  as  sovereign  is  rightfully  due 
all  the  reverence,  homage,  obedience,  which  man  can 
render.  Every  failure  is  a  sin,  an  act  of  rebellion,  a 
forfeiture  of  Divine  grace.  Only  the  most  absolute  per- 
fect obedience,  extending  to  every  movement  of  affec- 
tion or  thought,  and  every  act  of  life,  could  suffice  to 
pay  that  infinite  debt.  Thus  the  best  man,  naturally 
speaking,  in  his  imperfect  estate,  must  fail  to  render  that 
service  which  alone  could  be  sufficient  to  merit  pardon 
and  eternal  life  ;  while  every  least  offence,  done  against 
the  Infinite  and  Sovereign  God,  deserves  infinite  pen- 
alty. And  so,  the  more  closely  we  look  at  man's  con- 
dition, the  more  appalling  does  it  become.  Seen  from 
this  point  of  view,  there  is  no  remedy,  and  no  hope,  un- 
less some  power  can  be  found  to  mediate  between  those 
2 


14  ORTHODOX    THEORY 

attributes  of  the  Divinity,  to  reconcile  the  claims  of 
strict  justice  with  the  pleadings  of  infinite  love. 

Here,  then,  we  see  the  need,  and  the  preparation 
made,  for  the  Atoning  Sacrifice,  —  to  satisfy  the  twofold 
claim  of  man's  obedience  to  duty  arid  penalty  for  sin. 
In  both  he  has  incurred  an  infinite  loss  and  forfeit. 
Some  method  must  be  found  to  redeem  this  loss,  and 
make  it  possible  that  he  should  be  forgiven,  —  possible, 
without  lowering  the  demands  of  the  Divine  law,  or  de- 
tracting from  the  honor  of  the  sovereignty  of  God.  For 
this,  only  one  way  is  left  open  ;  without  it,  reconcilia- 
tion is  impossible.  A  being,  infinite  in  essence  like 
God,  mortal  in  condition  like  man,  must  fulfil  the  law 
and  abide  the  suffering  in  the  place  of  man,  standing  in 
man's  stead  before  the  bar  of  God,  rendering  a  perfect 
obedience  by  a  holy  and  spotless  life,  so  as  to  discharge 
his  debt,  and  suffering  the  infinite  agony  of  death,  so  as 
to  bear  his  penalty.  Only  on  such  conditions  as  these 
can  the  way  be  open  for  pardon,  and  the  preliminary 
steps  of  man's  salvation  be  taken. 

And  this  course  was  followed  out,  step  by  step,  in  the 
life  and  death  of  Jesus  Christ.  The  Divine  nature  put 
on  the  garment  of  humanity  ;  the  infinite  majesty  of 
heaven  was  clothed  in  the  veil  of  mortal  flesh.  Such 
from  eternity  was  the  constitution  of  the  Divine  nature, 
that  one  part  or  person  of  the  threefold  Deity  was  fore- 
appointed  to  this  office,  and  by  miraculous  birth  dwelt 
in  the  form  of  the  Son  of  Mary.  Exposed  to  the  at- 
tacks of  Satan  in  the  scene  of  the  Temptation,  he  vindi- 
cated his  Divine  nature  by  his  victory.  By  a  pure  and 
spotless  life  he  fulfilled  the  righteousness  that  was  due 
from  man  ;  by  his  miraculous  works  of  love  he  approved 
himself  the  express  representative  of  God's  attribute  of 


OF    CHRISTIANITY.  15 

mercy ;  by  his  voluntary  sacrifice  he  made  his  obedience 
complete,  and  loosed  for  man  the  chains  of  eternal 
death.  Then  was  Satan's  kingdom  broken,  himself  baf- 
fled, defeated,  and  overthrown.  Madly  he  had  urged 
men  on,  till  by  their  hands  the  Lord  of  Glory  w^as  cru- 
cified and  slain  ;  and  now  this  crowning  act  ransomed 
the  human  race  from  his  thraldom,  and  reinstated  the 
dominion  and  empire  of  God. 

III.  Still  as  yet  the  conditions  on  God's  part  only 
are  fulfilled.  Something  more  is  needed  before  the 
merit  of  this  atoning  act  passes  over  and  inures  to  the 
final  blessedness  of  man.  Of  itself  alone  it  would  not 
be  enough.  Else  it  would  inevitably  follow,  that,  as  the 
sacrifice  is  all-sufficient,  so  all  are  equally  redeemed  ;  as 
Satan's  kingdom  is  overthrown,  he  can  no  longer  have 
claim  over  a  single  soul ;  and  that  all  mankind  is  restored 
to  its  first  condition  of  perfect  blessedness.  Taking  the 
theory  thus  far,  it  leads  inevitably  to  Universalism,  and 
is,  in  fact,  precisely  the  system  of  Universalism  first 
taught  in  this  country,  about  sixty  years  ago.  But  here 
is  no  room  for  human  duty  ;  no  room  for  personal  hope 
and  fear  ;  no  motive  impelling  a  man  to  one  or  another 
course  of  belief  or  practice.  One  further  point  remains, 
—  man's  share  in  the  work  of  reconciliation.  The  con- 
dition has  been  fulfilled  on  one  side  ;  it  must  be  on  the 
other  also.  God  has  done  his  part  ;  it  remains  to  con- 
sider what  man  must  do. 

Repentance,  obedience,  faith,  —  these  are  the  sum  of 
the  conditions  required.  The  words  are  easily  spoken  ; 
but  how  is  the  process  they  signify  to  come  about  .'' 
How  shall  man,  bound  as  he  is  in  vassalage  to  sin  and 
Satan,  —  how  shall  he  repent  ?  How  shall  he  obey 
whose  flesh  is  weak,  whose  passions  are  strong,  whose 


16  ORTHODOX    THEORY 

conscience  is  gross  and  seared  ?  How  shall  he  believe 
whose  mind  is  clouded  in  ignorance  and  fettered  through 
unbelief?  How,  in  other  words,  is  man,  the  slave  of 
Satan,  to  find  himself  free,  rejoicing  in  the  glorious  lib- 
erty of  the  children  of  God  ? 

This  great  change  in  man's  heart,  the  change  from 
darkness  to  light,  from  anarchy  to  peace,  is  more  than 
a  partial  change  of  feeling,  or  habit,  or  outward  acts. 
It  is  a  change  of  the  entire  man,  a  new  birth,  the  great 
spiritual  fact  of  regeneration.  It  comes,  not  by  man's 
act,  but  by  God's  good  grace.  The  Holy  Spirit,  the 
Sanctifier  and  Comforter,  the  third  person  in  the  Divine 
nature,  takes  possession  of  the  heart,  works  the  conver- 
sion of  the  soul  from  sin  to  righteousness,  from  death  to 
life  ;  and  of  this  new,  regenerate  state,  repentance,  obe- 
dience, and  faith  are  but  the  natural  accompaniment 
and  fruit.  It  is  God  himself,  resuming  possession  of 
the  soul  that  had  been  lost  to  him.  Human  agency  is 
lost  and  swallowed  up  in  the  Divine.  Before  this  pro- 
cess man  can  do  nothing  for  himself,  scarce  offer  the 
petition  of  agony  and  despair.  He  must  cast  himself 
on  God  and  wait.  The  Spirit  is  adequate  to  his  own 
work,  and  human  interference  is  a  profanation  and 
offence. 

But  not  all  does  God  thus  choose  and  save,  or  we 
should  fall  back  on  the  same  difficulty  we  found  before. 
Infinite  in  knowledge  as  absolute  in  power,  he  foresaw 
from  the  first,  and  predestined  those  who  should  be 
saved  to  everlasting  life.  His  Divine  will  overshadows 
and  neutralizes  the  human  will.  Whom  he  would  he  or- 
dained to  life  ;  whom  he  would  he  left  subject  to  death. 
Thus  we  find  ourselves  again  led  on,  through  the  unre- 
lenting course  of  argument,  into  the  drear  and  chilling 


OF    CHRISTIANITY.  17 

region  of  abstract  speculation,  Man's  agency  has  dis- 
appeared, and  become  as  nothing.  The  sacrifice  has 
had  its  efficacy  for  those  ordained  and  elect  to  eternal 
life  ;  but  for  all  others  God's  inexorable  justice  holds 
its  steady  course.  The  mansions  of  heaven  are  filled 
with  those  whom  his  prevailing  spirit  has  wrought  upon 
to  conversion,  regeneration,  and  faith  ;  while  for  innu- 
merable others,  who  have  not  heard  the  word,  or  hear- 
ing believed  not,  there  remains  the  same  unrenioved, 
unexpiated  doom,  pronounced  first  on  all  the  race  of 
man. 

I  believe  that,  in  this  rapid  sketch,  I  have  accurately 
traced  the  course  of  thought  which  makes  up  the  Ortho- 
dox theory  of  Christianity,  properly  so  called.     I  have 
endeavoured  to  do  strict  justice  to  its  logical  merit,  not 
to  overstate  its  several  positions,  and  to  show  the  close 
dependence  of  each  part  on  all   the  rest.     I   have  en- 
deavoured to  state  it  in  all  its   method  and  plausibility  ; 
to  adopt  for  the  time  the  tone  and   way  of  thinking  of 
those  who  sincerely  hold  it  ;  and  to  trace,  step  by  step, 
its  several  connected  portions.      And  it  has  seemed  in- 
dispensable thus  to  set  it  forth  in  its  completeness  as  a 
whole.      As  I  think,  and  have  before  said,  we  must  take 
it  all  or  none.      It  stands  or  it  falls  together.     You  can- 
not take   its  parts  at   option,    omit   what    you    choose. 
Except,  perhaps,  the  doctrine  of  Election,  and  the  anni- 
hilation of  man's  free  agency,  with  which  it  closes,  — 
which  yet  has  a  close  connection  in   intrinsic  character 
with  the  rest,  —  there  is  not  a  part,  not  a  phrase,  that  is 
not  linked  in  by  that  iron  and  inexorable  chain  of  logic. 
Grant   to  any   one  part  the  strict   dogmatic   interpreta- 
tion, and  the  rest  folloW'S  by  compulsion.     The  lost  and 
2* 


18  ORTHODOX    THEORY 

rebellious  condition  of  man  ;  his  estrangement  from  Goo" 
by  the  machinations  of  a  malignant  spirit,  and  the  for- 
feiture of  his  birthright;  the  conflict  between  the  Divine 
attributes,  justice  and  mercy  ;  the  need  of  an  infinite 
atoning  sacrifice  ;  the  significance  of  the  life  and  death 
of  Christ  ;  the  final  process  of  supernatural  regenera- 
tion, by  which  the  mind  is  turned  to  God  ;  and  the  final 
rejection  of  those  in  whom  this  process  has  not  taken 
place  ;  —  all  are  essential  parts  and  features  In  that  system 
of  thought,  all  elements  needful  in  the  plan  of  salva- 
tion so  understood  and  held. 

As  I  have  remarked  before,  it  Is  not  so  much  the  par- 
ticular opinions  held,  as  the  tone  and  character  of  the 
thought,  that  marks  the  creed  of  Orthodoxy.  Tt  is  com- 
paratively of  little  consequence  what  particular  theories 
are  held,  as  the  honest  and  frankly  spoken  opinions  of 
serious  minds.  It  is  not  so  much  as  two  contrary  sys- 
tems of  doctrine,  that  Orthodoxy  and  Liberalism  are 
set  so  widely  apart,  but  as  different  and  radically  hostile 
methods  of  regarding  the  Divine  government  and  the 
conditions  of  spiritual  welfare.  It  belongs  to  my  next 
lecture  to  set  forth  my  general  objections  to  the  system 
I  have  now  been  exhibiting.  At  the  present  time,  ray 
only  object  Is  to  show  its  true  character,  that  we  may 
know  beforehand  uhat  It  is  we  are  passing  in  review. 

The  one  characteristic  of  Orthodoxy,  beside  which 
every  other  feature  is  subordinate  and  insignificant,  is, 
that  it  professes  to  be  the  only  system  of  belief  by 
which  a  man  can  be  saved.  Every  other  claim  is  lost 
sight  of  in  the  astounding  grandeur  of  this  one.  It 
may,  if  true,  be  a  more  accurate  account  of  man's  re- 
ligious experience  ;  it  may  throw  a  broader  light  on  the 
course  of  God's  providential  government,  and  the  mys- 


OF    CHRISTIANITY.  19 

teries  of  man's  moral  nature  ;  it  may  better  explain  the 
motives  from  which  men  act,  and  the  reasons  of  crime 
and  suffering  in  the  world  ;  it  may  be  better  calculated 
to  heighten  our  reverence  towards  God,  and  so  subdue 
and  spiiitualize  our  minds,  than  any  other  theory  that 
could  be  framed.  But  all  this  is  absolutely  nothing  be- 
side its  great  and  absolute  claim,  as  the  only  condition 
by  which  man  could  or  can  be  saved.  In  all  the  re- 
sources of  God's  power  and  mercy,  there  was  no  other 
way  possible  to  rescue  us  from  death.  In  all  the  fertile 
expedients  of  the  human  mind,  in  all  the  testimony  of 
the  living  conscience,  there  is  absolutely  nothing  else 
that  can  bring  us  into  communion  and  favor  with  the 
Infinite. 

Let  this,  its  absolute  and  imperative  claim,  be  con- 
stantly borne  in  mind.  Let  it  be  remembered,  also,  that 
its  parts  stand  or  fall  together,  and  that  a  breach  in  any 
portion  of  the  evidence  is  equivalent  to  a  dissolution  of 
the  whole  ;  and  then  let  us  seriously  address  ourselves 
to  the  task  of  a  thorough  and  patient  examination  of  it. 
And  if,  as  I  shall  hope  to  show,  it  proceeds  from  a  false 
theory,  and  is  sustained  by  defective  proof  ;  if  it  wrongly 
represents  the  design  and  purport  of  the  Christian  Scrip- 
tures ;  if  it  contravenes  the  majesty  and  the  mercy  of 
Almighty  God  ;  if  it  affronts  our  best  reason,  and  con- 
flicts with  our  purest  affection  ;  if  it  falsely  sets  forth  the 
condition  of  our  earthly  life,  and  opposes  our  best  and 
divinest  aspirations  in  reference  to  the  life  to  come  ;  —  if 
it  does  all  this,  w^hile  it  cannot  claim  support  from  the 
words  of  Christ,  or  from  any  thing  we  authentically 
know  of  the  purposes  and  works  of  God,  then  let  us 
not  fear,  in  a  candid  and  truthful  spirit,  to  set  it  aside  for 
a  form  of  faith  more  congenial  to  our  mind.     Let  not 


20         ORTHODOX  THEORY  OF  CHRISTIANITY. 

the  accidental  associations  of  holy  memory,  let  not  the 
persuasions  of  prejudice  and  habit  and  worldly  influ- 
ence, deter  us  from  the  sacred  duly  we  owe  to  God  and 
truth,  to  examine  freely  whether  these  things  be  so,  and 
from  offering  the  only  acceptable  gift,  of  hearty  convic- 
tion, of  sincere  and  manly  thought,  of  an  enlightened, 
and  reverent,  and  confiding  faith.  Harbour  no  intel- 
lectual dishonesty  and  self-deceit.  Tamper  not  with 
the  clear  and  honest  conviction  of  your  mind.  Exam- 
ine every  proposition  fairly,  and  do  not  refuse  to  ac- 
knowledge the  conclusion  to  which  you  are  fairly 
brought.  Prove  all  things  ;  hold  fast  that  which  is 
good. 


DISCOURSE  II. 


GENERAL  OBJECTIONS  TO  ORTHODOXY. 

THEY    RECEIVED     THE    WORD    WITH    ALL    READINESS     OF    MIND,    AND 
SEARCHED      THE     SCRIPTURES     DAILY,     WHETHER     THOSE     THINGS 

WERE  SO,  —  Acts  xvii.  11. 

In  the  previous  Discourse  I  attempted  to  give  an 
account  —  necessarily  brief  and  imperfect,  but  candid 
and  essentially  correct — of  the  system  of  Orthodoxy, 
as  held  in  substance,  though  variously  modified,  in  the 
churches  called  Evangelical.  It  is  my  purpose  now  to 
present,  in  a  brief  and  general  outline,  the  principal  ob- 
jections which,  to  my  mind,  lie  against  that  theory  as  a 
whole.  Let  it  be  understood  that  this  discussion  is 
wholly  independent  of  the  particular  evidence  brought  in 
support  of  particular  points.  It  has  to  do  only  with  the 
system  as  such,  and  takes  in  only  those  previous  ques- 
tions, the  right  answer  to  which  will  incline  us  towards 
one  or  the  other  side.  Every  person  has  some  bias, 
coming  from  his  education  or  way  of  thinking  generally  ; 
and  no  one  can  probably  look  at  any  argument  with  per- 
fect and  absolute  impartiality.  I  freely  acknowledge  this 
bias  in  my  own  mind,  as  to  various  systems  of  theology. 


23  GENERAL    OBJECTIONS 

I  confess  that  I  feel  Insurmountable  objections,  In  the 
nature  of  the  case,  which  make  It  Impossible  for  me  to 
approach  the  evidence  of  certain  doctrinal  points,  touch- 
ing my  moral  condition  and  spiritual  welfare,  as  I  would 
a  chain  of  reasoning  In  pure  mathematics.  There  are 
previous  considerations,  which  affect  the  weight  of  proof 
on  either  side  ;  and  therefore,  before  coming  to  the  proof, 
it  Is  right  that  you  should  be  aware  of  those  general  ob- 
jections to  the  scheme  under  review  which  to  me  are 
anterior  to  any  proof,  and  stronger. 

You  will  readily  recall  the  train  of  thought  by  which 
we  were  guided  through  the  circle  of  Orthodox  belief  :  — 
1.  Man's  condition  naturally  is  one  of  rebellion,  aliena- 
tion, and  hostility  towards  God, —  having  been  seduced 
from  the  innocence  of  his  first  estate  by  the  machinations 
of  the  malignant  spirit,  the  enemy  of  God,  to  whom  his 
allegiance  has  been  transferred.  2,  To  rescue  him  from 
his  lost  condition,  to  make  up  the  arrears  of  his  defied 
and  neglected  duty,  and  to  save  him  from  the  awful  pen- 
alty of  his  rebellion,  there  Is  needed  an  infinite  sacrifice, 
—  God  assuming  the  form  of  humanity,  so  as  to  fulfil  the 
required  righteousness,  endure  the  merited  punishment 
of  guilt,  and  reconcile  the  claims  of  justice  and  mercy 
in  the  Divine  nature,  so  as  to  let  man  go  free.  3.  And 
to  prepare  the  soul  of  man  to  receive  the  benefits  of  this 
atoning  sacrifice,  there  must  be  a  conversion  or  regenera- 
tion, brought  about  by  the  immediate  operation  of  the 
Divine  Spirit,  exercised  Irresistibly  on  those  who  from 
eternity  have  been  ordained  to  life ;  the  rest,  of  course, 
to  endure  endless  misery. 

So  far,  we  have  not  been  Inquiring  Into  the  truth  or 
falsity  of  the  doctrine, .but  only  endeavouring  to  see  what 
it  Is.     And  looking  at  it  as  a  system,  we  cheerfully  ac- 


TO  ORTHODOXY.  29 

knowledge  that  it  has  considerable  merit  and  plausibility. 
In  the  first  place,  it  seems  to  be  very  complete  and  full  ; 
to  have  an  answer  ready  for  every  exigency  ;  to  deal 
with  things  in  a  systematic  and  orderly  method  ;  to  com- 
prehend the  entire  circle  of  providential  action,  so  far  as 
we  are  concerned  in  it  ;  and  so  to  give  a  precise,  clear, 
and  consistent  account  of  every  relation  towards  God, 
man,  and  the  future  world,  in  which  we  can  possibly  be 
placed.  I  do  not  say  it  is  satisfactory  ;  but  it  is  cer- 
tainly consistent  with  itself.  Its  merits  in  that  regard  are 
very  great.  It  has  herein  a  great  advantage  over  its  op- 
ponents. Like  a  disciplined  and  compact  body  of  troops, 
it  can  bear  up  long  against  the  uncertain  and  irregular 
assaults  of  a  vastly  greater  number,  having  no  defined 
system  of  operations  and  no  common  end  in  view.  It 
has  the  advantage,  too,  of  being  an  established  and  devel- 
oped form  of  faith.  Very  few  even  of  the  single  minds 
opposed  to  it  have  an  equally  definite  and  consistent 
theory  to  supply  its  place,  or  can  pretend  to  answer  the 
same  order  of  questions  with  equal  positiveness  ;  and, 
taking  any  number  of  them  together,  their  efforts  seem 
disjointed,  feeble,  and  clashing  with  one  another,  beside 
the  precise  and  orderly  movements  of  those  thoroughly 
marshalled  in  its  defence.  The  advantage  thus  gained 
may  be  more  apparent  than  real,  as  I  shall  endeavour  to 
show  presently  ;  but  as  an  apparent  and  temporary  ad- 
vantage, it  is  certainly  very  great. 

And,  in  the  next  place,  it  undeniably  comes  home  to 
the  religious  sensibilities  of  men.  As  I  shall  attempt  to 
show  hereafter  in  several  examples,  it  probably  grew  up, 
in  a  great  degree,  step  by  step,  out  of  the  strongly  roused 
devotional  feeling,  exaggerated  by  temperament  or  vari- 
ous excitements,  and  extravagantly  expressed  in  hymns 


24  GENERAL    OBJECTIONS 

and  prayers  ;  and  from  these  it  was  transferred  or  trans- 
lated into  the  language  of  creeds  and  dogmas  and  intel- 
lectual propositions  of  belief  This  much  is  certain,  and 
should  always  be  admitted  in  speaking  of  it,  —  that  it 
does  at  each  several  point  meet  and  gratify  a  certain 
state  of  the  religious  sensibility.  In  the  warmth  of 
devout  feeling,  we  adore  the  infinite  majesty  of  God,  so 
remote  from  our  misery  and  sin  ;  the  conscience  is  stim- 
ulated by  the  contrast  to  reproach  us  with  a  greater  guilt 
than  our  own  acts  have  brought  upon  us,  even  that 
inherited  from  the  founder  of  our  race  ;  aware  of  our  be- 
setting moral  peril,  we  tremble  at  the  deceits  and  temp- 
tations of  an  invisible  spiritual  foe  ;  we  appeal  to  God's 
mercy,  while  we  confess  our  own  unworthiness  ;  we 
acknowledge  gratefully  the  mediating  agency  of  Christ, 
appealing  to  our  better  nature  and  reconciling  us  to  God  ; 
and  even  his  death,  endured  for  our  sake,  seems  not  too 
great  a  sacrifice  to  infinite  justice,  to  redeem  us  from 
the  deserved  punishment  of  our  guilt  :  even  the  penalty 
of  torture,  unending  and  infinite,  seems  not  too  great  to 
avenge  the  ingratitude  and  wrong  with  which  our  sensi- 
tive conscience  reproaches  us.  Now  all  these  are  con- 
ditions of  mind  growing  out  of  the  strong  action  of  our 
devout  sensibility.  It  is  not  the  best  and  most  healthful 
action  of  that  faculty.  It  is  far  below  that  condition  of 
cheerful,  trustful  piety,  which  looks  up  to  God  without 
terror,  and  confides  itself,  childlike,  to  the  sovereignty  of 
infinite  love.  It  is,  as  I  think,  an  exaggerated  and 
morbid  state  of  mind,  but  one  by  no  means  unnatural.  I 
have  heard  persons  far  from  Orthodox  in  their  belief 
speak  in  the  tone  of  that  sentiment,  and  seriously  accuse 
themselves  of  deserving  the  penalty  of  eternal  misery. 
And  weshould  overlook  one  of  the  chief  sources  of  the 


TO    ORTHODOXY.  25 

power  of  Orlhodoxy  over  the  general  mind,  if  vye  failed 
to  see  how  exactly  it  meets,  at  each  point,  that  roused 
and  strained  condition  of  the  religious  sentiment,  and 
gives  full  play  and  gratification  to  the  spirit  of  self-accu- 
sation and  implicit  surrender  to  the  disposal  of  the  Infi- 
nite, so  characteristic  of  a  religious  mind. 

One  other  point,  that  we  may  stand  perfectly  fair  to- 
wards every  one,  when  we  come  to  the  main  argument. 
I  disclaim  explicitly  any  jealous  or  hostile  feeling  towards 
those  of  another  form  of  faith.      Some,    I   know,  have 
been  embittered  and  alienated  by  harsh  conduct,  bigotry, 
misunderstanding,    shown   towards   them   by   theological 
opponents  ;  and  in  their  case  personal  feeling  has  mixed 
itself  in  with  the  preference  one  naturally  has  towards  a 
faith  congenial  to  himself,  and  mingled  some  rancor  with 
their  objections  towards  a  different  faith.       To  these  un- 
fortunate collisions  I  have  never  been  exposed.      It  is 
not  only  my  earnest  desire  to  avoid  all  such  sources  of 
prejudice,  but  it  would  be  impossible  for  me  to  feel  them 
very  strongly.     Not  only  have  many  of  those  to  whom  I 
have    felt    the  strongest   affection   and   respect    inclined 
towards  the  form  of  faith  which  I  oppose,  —  not  only  do 
I  cherish  the  most  unfeigned  admiration  for  the  lives  and 
labors  and  Christian  excellences  of  devoted  men,   who 
have  lived  and  live  now  in  implicit  and  reverential  sub- 
mission to  it,  finding  in  it  their  strength  for  labor  and 
hope  of  heaven,  —  not  only  do  I  regard  with  sincere  and 
admiring  gratitude  the  indefatigable   labors  of  missiona- 
ries, and  teachers,  and  messengers  of  charity,  who  have 
planned,  and  organized,  and  carried  on  so  vast  a  scheme 
of  Christian  enterprise  ;  but  sacred  and  intimate  commun- 
ion in  various  scenes  of  the  religious  life,  the  counsel  and 
sympathy  of  sickness,  the  prayer  of  fraternal  faith  at  the 
3 


26  GENERAL    OBJECTIONS 

death-bed,  participation  in  the  same  solemn  public  ser- 
vices of  religion,  have  all  operated  to  keep  me  from 
blind  and  wilful  prejudice,  and,  while  I  dissent  from  the 
creed,  to  make  me  feel  kindly  towards  those  who  hold  it. 
I  look  on  this  religious  theory  simply  as  appealing  to  my 
intellect,  and  claiming  my  assent.  Wholly  aside  from 
any  personal  feeling  towards  its  advocates,  I  would 
judge  it  solely  by  its  own  intrinsic  merit  and  credibility. 

Now,  after  so  much  admission  as  I  have  made,  it  might 
seem  a  vain  and  idle  captiousness  that  leads  me  to  inter- 
fere with  men's  belief  at  all.  My  course,  in  thus  deliber- 
ately bringing  it  forward  for  discussion  and  attack,  might 
seem  to  require  an  apology.  And  so  it  would,  if  we  could 
stop  here,  —  if  we  thought  only  of  those  three  points, 
its  logical  completeness,  its  satisfaction  to  the  religious 
sentiment,  and  the  personal  excellence  of  many  of  its 
advocates.  But  we  must  go  further.  We  must  look  at 
it  as  it  bears  on  all  sides,  as  it  affects  our  whole  tone 
of  thought  and  feeling  on  religious  things,  and  especially 
as  it  meets  the  case  of  sincere,  conscientious,  enlight- 
ened, independent,  liberal  thinkers.  It  cannot  be  denied, 
that  many  in  the  Church  maintain  but  a  very  lax  and  vacil- 
lating faith  ;  that  the  creed  keeps  at  a  distance  many  of 
honest  mind,  who  cannot  get  over  their  repugnance  to  its 
statements  ;  that  many  outside  the  Church  find  in  it 
grounds  of  scoff  and  cavil  and  religious  indifference  ; 
that  it  gives  occasion  among  some  for  intolerance  towards 
those  who  agree  not  with  them,  or  pretence  of  a  convic- 
tion more  sincere  than  what  they  really  entertain. 

And  this,  wholly  aside  from  its  intrinsic  truth  or  false- 
ness, —  wholly  aside  from  the  undeniable  merits  we  may 
ascribe  to  it.     For,  from  the  very  law  of  our  intellectual 


TO  ORTHODOXY.  27 

constitution,  from  the  nature  of  the  working  of  our 
thinking  facuhy,  when  our  assent  is  imperatively  de- 
manded, we  ask  why  and  how^  and  demand  to  know^  the 
reason.  We  become  captious  and  cavilHng,  perhaps, 
and  our  mind  is  not  in  a  condition  to  receive  truth  heaUh- 
ily.  To  demand  assent  before  the  proof  is  the  most 
unfair  way  of  dealing  with  the  mind.  Argument  is  fore- 
closed. Candor  is  made  no  account  of,  and  set  aside. 
If  the  inducement  to  feign  belief  is  strong,  some  will 
become  hypocritical  and  insincere.  If  the  argument  is 
weak,  it  throw^s  suspicion  on  the  whole  class  of  topics  on 
which  it  bears.  And,  more  than  all,  if  threats  are  super- 
added to  the  argument,  —  if  terror  is  brought  in  to  help 
out  a  halting  demonstration,  —  if  awful  penalties  are 
hinted  at  for  unbelief,  —  if  the  inquirer  is  told  that  just 
such  an  answer  he  must  come  to,  or  else  his  salvation  is 
lost  for  ever,  —  it  cannot  be  but  that  the  mind  is  un- 
hinged, and  made  unfit  to  reason.  Either  one  yields, 
in  blind  and  implicit  fear,  not  to  persuasion  or  proof,  but 
to  overbearing  and  despotic  dogmatism,  and  purchases 
the  hope  of  spiritual  safety  at  the  cost  of  intellectual 
honor  and  independence,  or  else  he  despises  the  threat, 
defies  the  doom,  and  turns  his  back  in  anger  on  those  who 
sought  to  overawe  when  they  could  not  convince. 

Now,  in  however  slight  a  degree,  qualified  by  never  so 
many  circumstances,  it  cannot  be  denied  that  these  ef- 
fects of  make-believe,  hypocrisy,  and  unbelief  have  been 
found  wherever  it  has  been  attempted,  in  whatever  way, 
to  enforce  a  religious  creed.  I  say  nothing  of  the  amount 
of  truth  or  error  there  may  be  contained  in  it.  I  should 
dread  it  as  much  for  my  own  form  of  belief  as  any  other. 
Whatever  the  nature  of  the  propositions,  to  present  them 
as  a  foregone  conclusion,  to  anticipate  the  proof  and  de- 


28  GENERAL    OBJECTIONS 

mand  a  previous  consent,  and  to  denounce  a  penalty, 
however  slight,  on  one's  failure  to  be  convinced,  nnust 
work  that  harm  in  some  one  or  more  to  whom  such  a 
process  of  thought  is  addressed.  Such,  to  some  extent, 
has  been  the  result  in  every  church  that  has  attempted  it. 
And  if  it  were  only  a  single  one  that  had  ever  suffered, 
or  were  now  likely  to  suffer,  in  this  way,  his  case  would 
be  reason  enough  and  ample  apology  for  the  task  I  now 
attempt.  It  cannot  be  but  that,  in  an  intelligent  and 
thinking  community,  there  should  be  many  dissatisfied, 
and  some  in  peril  of  their  truthfulness  and  faith,  from 
such  d'emands  upon  their  understanding  ;  and  to  them  I 
freely  and  without  fear  address  myself. 

What  I  say  w'ill  be  included  in  these  three  main 
points:  —  first,  objections  to  the  principle  involved  in 
the  Orthodox  system  ;  next,  objections  to  the  nature  of 
the  evidence  adduced  ;  and,  lastly,  objections  to  the 
character  of  the  statements  contained. 

I.  I  trust  I  have  already  said  enough  to  indicate  the 
inherent  and  unqualified  objection  I  find  to  the  principle 
that  lies  at  the  bottom  of  the  system  of  Orthodoxy.  You 
cannot  possibly  make  me  believe,  —  I  challenge  all  the 
dogmatic  theologians  in  Christendom  to  njake  me  once 
admit  it  to  be  credible,  —  that  God  could  make  the  sal- 
vation of  any  man  depend  on  the  acceptance  of  particular 
statements  in  metaphysics  or  theology,  or  the  authority 
of  any  creed  or  outward  institution  whatsoever.  The 
objection  is  unqualified  and  absolute.  It  lies  not  only 
against  the  proof  itself,  but  against  the  entire  system  and 
mode  of  proof.  It  forms  an  inherent  and  insurmount- 
able obstacle,  and  forecloses  my  own  mind  utterly  to  any 
plausibility  that  can  possibly  be  advanced  in  behalf  of 
such  a  principle. 


TO    ORTHODOXY.  29 

I  know,  as  certainly  as  I  know  my  own  existence,  that 
men's  minds  differ,  radically  and  fundamentally,  as  to 
certain  points.  Whether  the  difference  is  innate,  or 
comes  by  education,  —  whether  it  is  absolutely  insur- 
mountable or  not,  —  I  do  not  care  to  say.  For  all  prac- 
tical purposes,  it  is  certainly  impossible  that  there  should 
be  identity  of  opinion  on  matters  of  theological  belief. 
My  Catholic  neighbour  finds  no  difficulty  in  believing 
that  the  sacramental  bread  and  wine  are  literally  the  body 
and  blood  of  Christ  ;  while,  to  a  rationalist,  any  thing 
positively  miraculous  is,  in  his  present  state  of  mind,  ab- 
solutely incredible.  One  regards  the  Divine  nature  as 
existing  in  a  trinity  of  persons  ;  while  another  will  not 
acknowledge  theoretically  any  other  mode  of  the  Divine 
Being  than  as  the  diffused  Spirit  of  the  Universe.  One 
thinks  of  man's  intellectual  and  moral  powers  as  closely 
bound  up  with  and  dependent  on  the  bodily  organization, 
to  perish  with  it  unless  miraculously  renovated  and 
sustained  ;  to  another,  the  human  soul  is  inherently  and 
essentially  immortal,  so  that  he  cannot  possibly  think  of  it 
as  any  way  subject  to  decay  or  dissolution.  I  do  not  say 
that  all  these  ways  of  thinking  are  equally  true,  or  equally 
safe  and  meritorious,  or  equally  congenial  to  our  intel- 
lectual faculty.  But  I  do  say  that  they  indicate  such  a 
radically  different  mental  constitution  in  different  men, 
that  1  cannot  possibly  conceive  or  allow  that  a  righteous 
God  should  require  sameness  of  belief  on  any  point  as 
indispensably  necessary  to  receiving  any  of  his  favor. 
And  this  fundamental  objection  is  a  matter  of  principle, 
anterior  to  any  argument.  It  applies  not  to  this  or  that 
set  of  opinions,  but  to  all  dogmatic  assumptions,  and  the 
unqualified  requisition  of  any  theological  creed  whatso- 
ever. 

3* 


30  GENERAL    OBJECTIONS 

II.  But  waiving  this,  —  which  I  state  thus  strongly  so 
as  to  bring  the  principle  of  the  opposing  systems  into  full 
relief, —  a  yet  more  fatal  objection  lies  against  the  system 
under  review,  regarded  as  claiming  authority  over  the  in- 
tellect, and  demanding  assent  in  the  name  of  God.  From 
the  very  nature  of  the  case,  the  evidence  for  it  must  be 
insufficient.  Granting  it  to  be  true,  it  can  never  be 
proved  true.  The  argument  for  it  must  be  defective  and 
fallacious,  from  the  nature  of  the  case.  For  there  is  no 
authority. to  which  w^e  can  appeal.  An  umpire  or  arbi- 
trator, accepted  on  both  sides  as  absolute  and  authorita- 
tive, is  clearly  wanted  to  settle  the  points  of  doubt  :  and 
where  shall  we  find  such  a  tribunal  ?  where,  at  least,  a 
tribunal  to  which  we  can  go  as  Protestants  ?  I  can  un- 
derstand a  Catholic  when  he  talks  to  me  about  the  au- 
thority of  his  Church.  I  can  understand,  at  least,  how 
that  authority,  and  the  infallible  inspiration  claimed  for  it, 
should  settle  all  disputed  points  am.ong  Catholics  them- 
selves, although  I  maintain  it  to  be  impossible  to  bridge 
over  the  chasm  between  that  authority  and  our  minds,  or 
to  bring  any  one  by  pure  argument  either  into  or  out  of 
that  exclusive  and  uncompromising  Church.  For  here, 
too,  the  selection  of  the  authority  is  part  of  the  very 
question  at  issue.  But  how  a  Protestant,  having  once 
disowned  that  authority  on  earth,  and  declared  for  lib- 
erty of  mind  and  conscience  in  the  interpretation  of  God's 
word,  can  commit  himself  to  that  solecism,  that  blunder, 
that  defiance  and  contempt  of  his  own  first  principles,  to 
assert  a  creed  dogmatically,  and  declare  that  a  right 
belief  in  it  is  essential  to  the  Christian  character  and 
hopes,  I  do  not  understand. 

Will  he  tell  me  that  the  Scriptures  are  such  an  infal- 
lible and  Divine  authority  as  we  require,  to  make  us  sure 


TO  ORTHODOXY.  31 

of  our  faith  ?  But  which  of  the  books  of  Scripture  ?  — 
for  all  Christians  are  not  agreed  as  to  the  canon  or  true 
list  of  the  sacred  books.  The  Catholic  Bible  is  in  several 
respects  different  from  ours.  Will  he  say  the  Bible  as 
held  and  read  by  Protestants  }  But  how  does  he  know 
it  to  be  literally  inspired  and  infallibly  true  .''  By  its  own 
declaration  ?  Even  allowing  that  this  is  the  true  mean- 
ing of  its  assertions,  (which  I  by  no  means  think,)  it 
would  be  reasoning  in  a  circle,  taking  for  granted  the 
very  thing  we  want  to  prove.  How  do  you  convince  me 
that  that  very  assertion  is  infallibly  true,  and  rightly  un- 
derstood ?  Can  the  book  prove  its  own  inspiration  to 
one  who  does  not  believe  the  book,  any  more  than  to  one 
who  does  not  think  it  says  so  .'' 

But  take  it  for  granted,  what  then  ?  Whose  interpre- 
tation of  the  Bible  shall  we  accept }  We  know  that 
studious  and  zealous  men,  taking  very  much  the  same 
view  of  Scripture  inspiration,  have  come  to  very  differ- 
ent conclusions  as  to  various  matters  of  faith.  If  any  of 
them  are  right,  some  of  them  must  be  wrong.  Setting 
aside  our  wholly  different  view  of  inspiration,  I  as  sin- 
cerely think  the  system  of  Orthodoxy  is  not  found  in  the 
Bible,  as  my  neighbour  sincerely  thinks  it  is.  And  who 
shall  decide  between  us  ^  Now  that  we  have  discarded 
the  paramount  authority  of  the  Church  as  over  private 
reason,  and  w'e  find  that  Scripture  reads  differently  to 
two  different  men,  equally  learned  and  equally  sincere, 
where  is  our  tribunal  ? 

Shall  the  test  be  assiduous  study,  with  grammar  and 
dictionary  and  the  help  of  the  learned  tongues  ?  Then 
what  a  mockery  to  the  faith  of  the  simple  and  ignorant  ! 
Whose  learned  decision  shall  they  trust  .''  To  which 
party  shall  they  go,  —  the  awful  alternative  being  life  and 


32  .  GENERAL    OBJECTIONS 

death,  —  heaven  and  hell  ?  Or  is  there  no  sure  belief 
and  salvation  for  them  at  all  ?  Av^^ay  with  this  cruel 
mockery  of  a  revelation,  to  be  found  only  in  dictionaries 
and  grammars  and  library-sfielves! 

The  true  test,  then,  some  will  say,  is  the  Holy  Spirit, 
interpreting  the  Scripture  record,  and  teaching  infallibly 
the  saving  truth.  Yes,  the  interpretation  of  the  Spirit, 
—  God's  own  voice  to  us,  —  we  will  take  that,  and  that 
shall  be  our  guide.  Yes  ;  but  do  you  claim  God's  in- 
spiration for  yourself,  and  deny  the  same  to  me  ?  If  so, 
your  reliance  this  time  is  more  weak  and  foolish  than  all 
the  rest.  It  is  the  height  of  spiritual  arrogance,  equal  to 
that  of  the  whole  hierarchy  of  Rome,  narrowed  dow^n  to 
the  pitiful  conceit  which  makes  one  poor  mortal  arrogate 
a  monopoly  of  God's  inspired  word.  As  if  the  Al- 
mighty should  narrow  and  restrain  himself,  and  whisper 
to  those  of  one  sect  or  creed  the  saving  truth  he  arbitra- 
rily withholds  from  every  other  !  No  ;  we  will  never 
consent  to  this. 

And  let  it  be  borne  in  mind,  besides,  that  this  ultimate 
resource,  this  claim  of  the  Holy  Spirit's  own  interpre- 
tation to  the  believer's  heart,  is  full  as  good  for  one 
sidt  as  for  the  other.  It  signifies  one  of  two  things. 
Either  it  is  a  declaration  of  the  sacred,  indefeasible  right 
of  every  human  soul  to  tru^:  its  own  most  earnest 
thought,  and  confide  itself  without  fear,  in  its  search  for 
truth,  to  the  guidance  of  the  God  of  truth,  and  so  is 
the  most  simple  and  absolute  liberalism,  the  very  doc- 
trine I  am  laboring  to  maintain  ;  or  else  it  is  the  most 
arrogant,  narrow,  domineering,  unworthy  form  of  spirit- 
ual usurpation,  foreclosing  argument  by  the  assumption 
of  personal  infallibility,  and  abandoning  the  whole  ground 
of  appeal  to  a'ny  possible  authority  recognized  in  com- 


TO    ORTHODOXY.  33 

mon  by  any  two  minds.  And  whichever  inlerpretation 
we  accept,  we  come  round  at  last  to  an  absolute  demon- 
stration of  what  I  said  before  ;  that,  from  the  nature  of 
the  case,  there  cannot  be  evidence  sufficient  to  establish 
the  creed  of  Orthodoxy,  as  the  only  saving  faith.  No 
healthy  and  sound  intellect,  I  think,  can  possibly  admit 
that  the  acceptance  of  such  a  creed,  or  any  creed, 
should  be  the  ground  of  acceptance  with  the  just  God. 
We  cannot  conceive  of  greater  dishonor  done  to  him, 
than,  not  only  to  say  that  such  a  scheme  was  necessary 
to  man's  salvation,  but  then  to  add  that  one  must  think 
50,  or  be  for  ever  deprived  of  all  its  benefit. 

III.  Again  ;  besides  the  objections  I  have  stated, 
to  the  fundamental  principle  and  the  nature  of  the  evi- 
dence on  which  Orthodoxy  rests,  I  have  further  reasons 
against  the  character  of  the  doctrines  which  compose  it. 
I  will  state  these  reasons  briefly  in  order  ;  —  as  they  ap- 
ply, first,  to  the  view  of  the  Divine  government  ;  next, 
to  the  condition  of  man  here  represented  ;  and  lastly,  to 
man's  assumed  agency  in  the  work  of  his  own  salvation. 

The  view  of  the  Divine  government  contained  in  the 
Orthodox  theory,  disguise,  or  palliate,  or  explain  it  how 
you  will,  is  such  as  we  cannot  possibly  admit,  when 
thinking  of  the  character  of  the  Christian's  God,  — 
the  Merciful  and  Holy  One.  It  represents  him  as  a 
Sovereign  in  the  most  unamiable  and  repulsive  charac- 
ter assumed  by  petty  monarchs  of  earth,  —  as  supreme- 
ly jealous  of  his  personal  glory,  and  vindictive  to  the 
uttermost  in  punishing  the  smallest  dereliction  from  the 
homage  due.  And  here  there  is  no  room  for  the  plau- 
sible extenuations  we  might  use  in  behalf  of  an  infe- 
rior sovereign.  We  cannot  speak  of  the  "  nature  of 
things  "  as  requiring  infinite  penalty  for  guilt  done  to- 


34  GENERAL    OBJECTIONS 

wards  an  infinite  being  ;  for  the  "  nature  of  things  "  is 
nothing  more  than  the  expression  of  his  will  ;  and, 
prevaricate  as  we  may,  we  must  come  round  to  this 
at  last,  —  that  every  throb  of  torture,  every  moment 
in  the  infinite  duration  of  agony,  (supposed  to  be  mer- 
ited by  the  guilt  of  man,)  is  the  special  appointment  of 
God,  and  by  him  exacted  to  the  uttermost ;  showing  a 
deliberate,  vindictive,  I  might  almost  say  malignant,  in- 
fliction of  misery,  which  sets  our  imagination  aghast, 
and  makes  us  wonder  if  it  is  not  some  fever-dream  of 
the  horrors  of  Satan's  realm  we  are  considering,  rather 
than  a  calm  and  well-judged  opinion  as  to  the  rule  of 
Almighty  God. 

Neither  can  we  speak  of  ''  reasons  of  state  "  and 
the  honor  of  his  government  demanding  such  a  penalty. 
It  w^ere  blasphemy  and  insult  to  the  Majesty  of  Heaven, 
to  insinuate  any  peril  of  turbulence  and  anarchy  to 
supersede  that  beneficent  rule.  We  know  that  Divine 
power  works  steadily,  prevails  irresistibly.  So,  by  the 
terms  of  this  creed,  it  works  and  prevails  on  the  souls 
of  the  elect.  Could  its  energies  be  expended  in  inflict- 
ing tortures  on  a  "  rebellious  worm,"  —  least  of  all  on 
the  plea  of  danger  and  anarchy,  —  if  it  were  not  so  ? 
True,  this  is  only  half  the  Orthodox  representation  of 
the  Divine  nature.  True,  the  attribute  of  mercy  is 
matched  against  that  of  justice,  and  the  impending  pen- 
alty is  only  the  occasion  for  the  display  of  atoning  love. 
But  who  taught  us  that,  in  the  pure  and  absolute  nature 
of  the  Deity,  there  can  be  such  a  conflict  of  attributes, 
like  the  conflict  of  the  passions  in  the  human  breast  ? 
Does  any  one  seriously  mean  that  justice  and  mercy 
are  at  variance,  —  except,  indeed,  in  the  debates  and 
perplexities  of  our  imperfect  reason  ?       Will  any  one 


TO    ORTHODOXY.  35 

seriously  transfer  that  imperfeciion  to  the  Godhead, 
and  maintain  that  perfect  justice  ^vouId  demand  what 
man  cannot  render,  or  that  perfect  love  could  consent 
to  the  sacrifice  of  the  innocent  for  the  guilty  ? 

Then  what  becomes  of  God's  wisdom  and  omnipo- 
tence, if  his  design  is  thwarted,  the  harmony  of  his 
creation  broken  up,  at  the  very  moment,  as  it  were,  of 
completion,  by  the  contrivance  of  his  subtle  foe  ? 
Was  God  baffled  and  outwitted  by  Satan,  and  unable 
to  save  his  creation  from  the  devastation  and  wretched- 
ness that  must  inevitably  ensue  ?  Or,  on  the  other  hand, 
(which  is  even  worse  to  think  of,)  did  he  deliberately 
intend  a  mockery  when  he  gave  Adam  his  law  ?  Did 
he  place  him  there,  with  ignorant  innocence  for  his  only 
shield,  and  expose  him  on  purpose  to  all  the  deceits  and 
assaults  of  the  Enemy  ?  Did  he  leave  him  at  the 
mercy  of  such  a  powerful  and  malignant  spirit,  knowing 
beforehand  that  he  must  fall  a  prey,  and  appointing  be- 
forehand the  extreme  and  fiightful  penalty  ?  To  this 
shocking  dilemma  w^e  are  brought  at  once  by  the  Or- 
thodox statement  of  God's  government  and  the  law 
established  over  man.  We  cannot  escape  it.  The 
alternative  is  simple  and  plain.  Either,  on  the  one  hand, 
God  did  not  know  the  peril,  or  knowing  could  not  prevent 
it,  and  Satan  triumphed  at  the  expense  of  his  wisdom  and 
his  power  ;  or,  on  the  other  hand,  knowing  it,  and  having 
ability  to  defend  man  from  it,  he  left  him  unguarded, 
with  the  appalling  certainty  that  he  would  fall,  and  that 
no  possible  effort,  humanly  speaking,  could  save  him 
from  infinite  misery  and  despair. 

Thus,  whatever  way  we  look  at  it,  the  character  of 
God,  as  shown  in  this  theory,  is  full  of  contradiction 
and  imperfection.     Except  by  a  subversion  of  all  our 


36  GENERAL    OBJECTIONS 

ideas  of  right  and  wrong,  —  by  utterly  denying  the 
moral  distinctions  nnost  venerable  and  sacred,  —  by  ob- 
scuring every  thing  in  the  Divine  nature  which  makes  a 
difference  between  holiness  and  sin,  good  and  evil,  God 
and  the  Adversary  of  God, — we  cannot  get  over  the 
radical  contradiction.  We  may  cover  up  one  half,  and 
think  of  him  as  the  personation  of  avenging  justice. 
We  may  cover  up  the  other,  and  remember  only  the 
attribute  of  atoning  love.  But  we  cannot  view  the 
Divine  character  as  a  whole,  without  confounding  and 
denying  our  very  Idea  of  God.  We  destroy  irretriev- 
ably either  his  wisdom,  or  his  omnipotence,  or  his 
mercy  and  just  dealing  towards  his  creatures.  And  I 
cannot  look  steadily  on  such  a  representation  as  this,  — 
once  putting  out  of  sight  the  amiable  and  excellent  traits 
in  many  who  sincerely  hold  It,  —  without  doubting 
whether  I  am  In  the  pale  of  Christian  thought  at  all. 
No  pagan  has  done  such  dishonor  to  his  false  god  as  to 
give  him  a  character  like  this.  Once  put  It  in  defi- 
nite shape,  tell  it  In  plain  words,  and  the  conception 
becomes  blasphemy,  —  a  parody  and  mockery  of  the 
holy  attributes  of  God.  And  this  objection,  I  think, 
is  absolutely  inseparable  from  that  system  of  theology 
which  we  are  now  considering. 

Nor  Is  our  objection  diminished  by  taking  into  ac- 
count the  moral  state  of  man,  as  here  set  forth.  For 
we  must  accept  one  side  or  the  other  of  the  following 
alternative.  On  the  one  hand,  if  we  consider  him  as 
born  into  It,  Inevitably,  and  In  the  unrestrained  course 
of  providence,  then  we  take  the  guilt  from  him  and 
throw  it  back  on  God.  It  is  useless  to  say  he  inherited 
it  from  the  founder  of  the  race  ;  for  who  constituted 
the  organic  law  which  made  Adam's  sin  transmissible 


TO  ORTHODOXY.  37 

to  his  posterity  ?  Who  ordained  the  system  of  tilings 
in  which  one's  character  depends  on  his  progenitors  ? 
Or  who  made  the  arbitrary  appointment,  that  one  who 
has  not  sinned  should  be  treated  as  if  he  had,  because 
some  one  else  has  sinned,  — especially  when  it  is  utterly 
out  of  his  own  power  to  alter  his  own  condition,  or  to 
have  avoided  coming  into  it  ?  It  is  no  more  my  fault 
that  I  was  born  a  son  of  Adam,  than  that  I  was  born 
at  all  ;  and  what  power  is  it  that  imputes  his  guilt  to 
me  ?  On  this  supposition,  the  greatest  possible  punish- 
ment is  inflicted  for  the  greatest  possible  misfortune  ; 
and  that  misfortune  is  brought  on  us  by  the  selfsame 
Being  who  visits  it  with  such  terrific  vengeance. 

On  the  other  hand,  if  we  consider  that  a  man's  own 
sin,  his  own  wilful  and  personal  and  positive  fault,  has 
brought  the  condition  upon  him,  then  the  very  point  and 
significance  of  the  assertion  are  lost.  The  doctrine  of 
inexpiable  rebellion  and  infinite  guilt  dwindles  down  to 
some  general  and  sweeping  assertion  about  the  amount 
of  sin  and  misery  in  the  world.  Now  this  is  not  the 
point  in  controversy.  There  may  be  a  vast  deal  of 
crime  and  wretchedness  in  the  world,  —  an  infinite 
amount,  to  all  intents  and  purposes,  —  that  is,  so  far 
as  concerns  our  power  of  estimating  it  and  relieving  it. 
This  is  an  assertion  which  I  do  not  care  just  now  to 
admit  or  contradict.  To  my  mind  it  seems  exaggerated 
and  one-sided,  —  a  morbid  and  hypochondriacal  view  to 
take  of  human  life.  But  let  it  go.  All  I  have  to  say 
of  it  is,  that  it  is  not  the  Orthodox  dogma  with  which  I 
am  contending  ;  that  it  abandons  the  theological  sig- 
nification ascribed  to  the  fact  of  sin  ;  that  it  gives  up 
the  whole  ground  of  strictly  infinite  guilt,  and  the  desert 
of  infinite  penalty,  and  becomes  a  tame  and  common- 
4 


GENERAL    OBJECTIONS 


place  assertion,  to  be  judged  of  by  our  good  sense  and 
good  taste,  rather  than  by  any  theological  criterion. 
Whichever  way  we  take  it,  it  becomes  equally  objec- 
tionable and  inadmissible  as  part  of  our  religious  belief. 
It  may  be  the  transient  suggestion  of  an  upbraiding  con- 
science, but  cannot  be  the  deliberate  conviction  of  a 
clear,  practical,  sagacious,  and  healthy  mind. 

Lastly,  the  agency  of  man  in  the  work  of  his  own 
salvation.  This,  in  the  strict  interpretation  of  the  creed, 
is  absolutely  nothing.  Conversion,  regeneration,  faith, 
are  superinduced  upon  him  by  the  irresistible  operation 
of  the  Holy  Spirit.  The  great  turning-point  of  the 
spiritual  life  and  destiny  is  just  as  much  out  of  his 
reach  to  control,  as  the  circumstance  of  his  being  born, 
or  being  born  inheritor  of  Adam's  guilt.  And  yet, 
from  the  very  nature  of  the  religious  faculty,  from  the 
constant  testimony  of  conscience,  appeal  must  be  made 
to  him  as  a  responsible  being.  The  whole  language  of 
religion  would  be  ridiculous  and  a  solecism,  if  it  did  not 
take  for  granted  his  accountability.  Man,  we  are  as- 
sured, can  of  himself  do  literally  nothing.  And  yet, 
this  powerless  creature,  this  slave  of  Satan,  this  impo- 
tent tool  of  a  malignant  power,  this  breathing,  guilty,  suf- 
fering machine,  is  addressed,  is  solemnly  appealed  to, 
as  if  by  his  own  act  he  were  drajving  down  the  impend- 
ing doom  of  death. 

This  contradiction  in  terms  no  theological  ingenuity 
has  ever  been  able  to  get  over.  All  attempts  to  avoid 
the  dilemma  have  ended  in  an  impotent  and  barren  jug- 
gle of  words.  The  alternative  stares  you  in  the  face, — 
either  man  is  a  free  agent,  or  he  is  not ;  if  he  is,  he  must 
be  appealed  to,  to  work  out  his  own  salvation  ;  if  he  is 
not,  it  is  not  his  fault  if  salvation  is  not  put  upon  him 


TO    ORTHODOXY.  39 

fiom  without.  The  intellect  will  for  ever  obstinately 
return,  and  stick  upon  that  stubborn  alternative.  And 
how  is  this  alternative  met  by  the  creed  of  Orthodoxy  ? 
How  is  the  sensitive  and  excited  conscience,  awake  to 
the  sense  of  unworthiness,  and  trembling  at  the  threatened 
doom, — how  is  it  relieved,  or  encouraged,  or  helped, 
by  any  assurance  coming  from  that  creed  ?  Alas  !  only 
by  the  most  unworthy  dallying  with  words,  —  by  the 
most  cruel  mockery  and  discouragement  to  its  sincere 
and  sensitive  emotion.  I  have  heard  the  "  sinners  "  of 
a  Christian  congregation  solemnly  assured  that  they 
could  not  take  a  single  step  to  secure  their  salvation,  — 
that  such  was  the  alienation  of  their  heart,  they  could 
not  even  raise  an  acceptable  prayer  to  God.  Nothing 
seemed  left  them  but  utter  despair,  so  far  as  the  creed 
was  concerned.  But  the  more  humane  spirit  of  the 
speaker  encouraged  them  to  hope,  that,  though  a  prayer 
to  God  would  fall  on  the  unheeding  air,  be  lost  in  the 
blank  and  empty  sky,  yet  a  petition  to  Jesus  might  be 
heard,  and  lead  the  way  to  the  bestowal  of  holy  influen- 
ces. And  this  petty  casuistry  and  subterfuge  was  the 
only  way  of  escape  from  the  inexorable  language  of  the 
creed,  so  as  to  meet  the  imperative  demand  of  common 
humanity.  The  dogma  is  barbarous,  chilling,  horrible. 
The  only  refuge  from  its  terrible  alternative  is  in  "  that 
glorious  inconsistency,  which  does  honor  to  human  na- 
ture, and  makes  men  so  much  better  than  their  creeds." 

Thus  I  have  given  you  the  principal  objections,  as 
they  lie  in  my  own  mind,  first,  against  the  principle 
involved  in  the  creed  of  Orthodoxy  ;  second,  against  the 
nature  and  validity  of  the  evidence  adduced  ;  and  third, 
against  the  character  of  the  propositions  contained.     It 


40  GENERAL    OBJECTIONS 

will  be  my  design  hereafter,  to  speak  more  particularly 
of  the  argument  in  behalf  of  the  several  leading  points. 
But,  in  conclusion,  let  me  anticipate  two  objections 
which  may  be  brought  against  what  has  now  been  said. 

It  may  be  argued,  that  I  am  reasoning,  not  against  the 
Orthodoxy  really  held  and  professed  in  our  churches, 
but  against  a  theory  or  phantom  of  it  in  my  own  brain, 
and  arbitrarily  got  up  for  the  sake  of  disparagement  and 
attack,  —  in  other  words,  that  I  do  not  fairly  represent 
the  system  I  oppose.  If  any  one  says  this,  I  put  to 
him  the  following  question.  Does  the  Orthodox  creed 
or  church  to  which  you  adhere  demand  belief  in  it  as 
a  condition  of  salvation,  or  does  it  not  .''  If  it  does, 
that  is  the  only  representation  I  have  made,  —  the  only 
point  against  which  I  have  directed  my  attack.  All  the 
rest  belong  to  this  ;  and,  for  all  my  argument  is  con- 
cerned, they  may  as  well  be  what  they  are  as  any  other. 
Call  it  calumny  and  misrepresentation  if  you  will  ;  but 
accuse  your  creed  of  it,  not  me.  If  it  does  not,  then 
all  I  have  to  say  is,  that  it  is  not  the  system  I  am  deal- 
ing with ;  and  I  am  glad  to  find  in  you  another  advocate, 
consciously  or  not,  of  an  independent  faith. 

Again,  it  may  be  argued  that  the  belief  required  is  not 
the  only  condition  of  salvation.  A  man's  creed  will  not 
save  him,  unless  borne  out  by  the  evidence  of  his  life. 
So  far  so  good,  if  a  higher  standard  of  virtue  is  hereby 
inculcated.  But  the  appalling,  the  fatal  declaration  is, 
that  the  evidence  of  his  life  will  not  save  him  without  his 
creed.  Do  you  say  that  is  the  very  word  of  Jesus,  — 
"  he  that  believeth  not  shall  be  condemned  "  ?  Believ- 
eth  not  what  ?  Here,  again,  will  you  assume  it  before 
the  proof.''  With  my  idea  of  salvation,  indeed,  as  the 
glorious  expansion  of  the  soul,  the  spiritual  growth  in 


TO     ORTHODOXY.  41 

freedom  and  blessedness,  the  life  of  man  in  perfect  com- 
munion with  the  Father  of  S{)iiits,  I  can  see  how  truth, 
as  the  aim  of  all  earnest  search,  the  perpetual  reward  of 
sincere  endeavour,  how  faith,  as  the  holy  alliance  be- 
tween the  soul  and  God,  should  be  essential  to  it.  But 
that  it  should  depend  —  this  alternative  of  blessedness 
or  woe  —  on  the  belief  of  statements  arbitrarily  laid 
down,  though  by  God  himself,  is  what  I  cannot  think. 
And  it  is  this  which  neutralizes  and  perverts  the  dec- 
laration, that  a  life  is  required  in  conformity  with  the 
creed.  The  insuperable  difficulty  is,  that  the  creed 
should  be  exacted  at  all,  absolutely  and  imperatively. 
Then  to  demand  a  good  life  besides,  according  to  the 
moral  theory  of  that  creed,  is  only  to  aggravate  the 
burden  ;  double  the  injustice  ;  superadd  another  el- 
ement of  vindictive  harshness  ;  make  the  little  finger 
thicker  now  than  the  loins  before  ;  and  whereas  men 
were  then  chastised  with  whips,  chastise  them  now  with 
scorpions. 

For  relief  to  this,  I  present  the  contrast  in  as  few 
words  as  possible.  The  doctrine  I  profess  adheres 
strictly  to  the  mercy  and  perfect  justice  of  God;  it 
does  not  deny  and  disparage  the  claim  of  human  reason, 
and  turn  it  off  with  a  vague  talk  of  mystery  ;  it  does 
not  underrate  the  claim  of  righteousness  or  deny  the 
infinite  value  of  truth  ;  it  does  not  mock  and  torture  the 
tender  conscience,  as  it  strives  to  guide  the  soul  to  God. 
But  it  says,  approach  him  with  a  glad,  courageous,  con- 
fiding faith.  Put  off  your  iniquity,  not  so  much  in  slav- 
ish fear  of  his  vengeance,  as  for  the  glory  of  being 
nearer  his  benignant  presence.  Receive  the  word  of 
truth  with  all  readiness  of  mind  ;  and  search  the  Scrip- 
tures, the  Gospel  of  Christ's  life  especially,  and  "  the 
4* 


42  GENERAL    OBJECTIONS    TO    ORTHODOXY. 

epistle  on  the  heart,"  freely,  candidly,  reverently,  wheth- 
er these  things  are  so.  Better  partial  error  in  a  free  and 
true  spirit,  than  abstract  truth  in  a  slavish,  false,  and 
narrow  spirit.  ''  God  requires  not  the  rightness  so  much 
as  the  uprightness  of  your  opinions."  The  truth  saves, 
only  through  the  free  and  hearty  love  of  truth. 


DISCOUESE    III. 


THE  TRINITY. 

TO    US    THERE    IS    BUT    ONE    GOD,    THE    FATHER;    OF    WHOM     ARE    ALL 

THINGS,  AND  WE  IN  HIM.  —  I  Corinthians  viii.  6. 

In  the  two  preceding  Discourses,  I  have  exhibited  the 
scheme  of  Orthodoxy  as  a  whole,  in  the  form  in  which 
I  suppose  it  to  be  held  and  taught  generally  ;  and  have 
also  stated  my  general  objections  to  it,  as  fully  and  dis- 
tinctly as  the  nature  of  my  plan  would  permit.  I  pass 
now  to  another  department  of  my  course,  namely,  the 
special  doctrines  included  in  that  scheme,  the  nature  of 
the  evidence  brought  to  sustain  them,  and  my  own  rea- 
sons for  rejecting  them. 

And  let  me  say  briefly,  in  anticipation,  that  I  do  not 
consider  a  public  assembly  a  fit  place  for  weighing  and 
estimating  duly  the  whole  mass  of  argument  that  bears 
upon  the  several  points.  Where  the  discussion  takes 
the  form  of  debate  or  oral  controversy,  the  advantage 
will  be  on  the  side  of  the  nimble  tongue  and  quick  re- 
tort. And  even  in  the  more  deliberate  and  grave  meth- 
od of  a  lecture  or  discourse,  time  cannot  be  given  for 
that  study  and  meditation  which  a  subject  of  this  nature 


44  THE    TRINITY. 

demands.  T  do  not  ask  you  to  listen  as  if  it  were  pos- 
sible for  me  to  meet  every  question,  answer  every  scru- 
ple, and  take  up  every  doubtful  point  of  proof.  I  fairly 
warn  you,  that  volumes  and  libraries  of  controversy 
have  been  written,  of  which  I  cannot  pretend  to  give 
you  so  much  as  the  faintest  outline  ;  that  laborious  and 
thoughtful  men  have  spent  often  the  best  of  a  lifetime  in 
profound  investigation  relative  to  some  single  one  of 
these  very  points ;  and  that  the  transition  from  one  mode 
of  belief  to  another  has  often  been  one  of  the  most 
earnest  and  solemn  forms  of  personal  experience,  in- 
volving weeks  or  years  of  painful  study  and  self-scrutiny, 
the  sacrifice  of  dear  friendships,  the  perilling  of  sacred 
associations,  in  short,  a  complete  revolution  of  the  whole 
intellectual  and  moral  state.  Such  arduous  labors,  such 
profound  experiences,  have  been  the  price  at  ^which 
earnest  minds  have  purchased  their  glimpses  of  Divine 
truth. 

Having  suffered  comparatively  little  of  that  sad  and 
distressing  passage  from  previous  belief  through  doubt 
towards  a  different  conviction,  — at  least  as  to  these  or- 
dinarily mooted  doctrines,  —  I  may  possibly  overlook 
some  points  which  press  heavily  on  many  minds.  And 
far  from  contenting  you  with  the  amount  of  evidence  in 
detail  sufficient  to  answer  every  inquiry,  I  can  only 
hope,  at  best,  to  suggest  to  you  trains  of  thought,  which 
you  may  follow  out  ;  to  present  the  case  as  it  lies  in  my 
own  mind,  after  such  attention  as  I  have  been  able  to 
bestow,  and  then  leave  it  to  your  own  interest  and  intel- 
lectual honesty  to  satisfy  yourself  as  to  the  sum  total  of 
the  argument.  The  Scriptural  proof,  in  particular,  I 
shall  be  forced  to  treat  rather  by  masses,  and  in  general 
terms.      The   sort  of   labor   needed   to    appreciate    the 


THE    TRINITY.  45 

force  of  words  and  phrases  in  a  foreign  tongue  is  one 
alien  to  and  irksome  for  such  a  place  as  this.  I  cannot 
give  you  the  study  itself,  but  only  the  results  of  study, 
—  more  that  of  others,  too,  than  mine  ;  and  this  I  can 
only  do  with  as  much  fairness,  brevity,  and  thorough- 
ness, as  the  nature  of  the  case  will  allow. 

My  subject  to-night  is  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  — 
a  doctrine  or  theory  of  the  Divine  nature  which  serves 
as  the  basis  for  the  entire  system  under  review, — the 
intellectual  substratum  on  which  rests  that  whole  view 
of  God's  providence  and  human  life.  Its  importance 
may  be  judged  from  the  fact,  that  the  boundary  of  the 
two  great  divisions  in  Christian  theology  (or,  as  some 
would  have  it,  the  dividing  line  between  Christian  and 
unchristian  thought)  is  at  this  very  point ;  that  the  Trin- 
ity is  appealed  to  in  the  state  papers  of  many  nations, 
and  its  name  given  to  a  multitude  of  church  structures 
in  every  land  ;  that  it  forms  the  first  article,  or  the  ex- 
plicit comment,  in  the  creed  of  very  many  churches  ; 
and  that  it  has  been  the  central  topic  of  inquiry  to  most 
of  the  laborious  and  thoughtful  men  who  have  investi- 
gated the  great  field  of  Christian  doctrine.  Where 
scholars,  and  wise  men,  and  pious  Christians,  have  dif- 
fered so  widely,  where  the  war  of  controversy  has  so 
long  and  so  loudly  raged,  it  becomes  us  to  be  modest, 
patient,  thoughtful,  in  making  up  our  minds.  At  best  I 
cannot  claim  positively  to  disprove  the  doctrine  ;  but 
only  to  expose  the  insufficiency  of  the  evidence  on 
w^hich  it  rests. 

Those  who  are  at  all  familiar  with  the  history  of  spec- 
ulation know  that  a  trinity  of  some  sort  has  been  a  fa- 
vorite formula  of  thinking,  from  the  very  earliest  times. 


46  THE    TRINITY. 

The  number  three  has  had  peculiar  attraction  for  those 
fond  of  the  theory  of  numbers.  It  is  the  smallest  num- 
ber in  which  there  can  be  both  difference  and  decision, 
—  a  minority  and  majority  ;  it  gives  the  fewest  points 
that  will  fix  a  geometrical  plane,  or  define  a  surface  ;  and 
it  is  found  again  in  summing  up  the  two  combining  forces 
(as  in  mechanics  or  magnetism)  with  their  result.  Spec- 
ulative minds  have,  from  the  first,  run  very  much  upon 
such  theories  and  forms  of  thought  ;  and  accordingly 
a  trinity  is  one  characteristic  feature  in  the  philosophy 
of  almost  every  nation.  Thus,  the  East  Indian  has 
his  trinity,  of  the  Creator,  Preserver,  and  Destroyer. 
The  Egyptian  hieroglyphics  indicate,  we  are  told,  a 
trinity,  taught  by  the  Theban  priesthood  before  the 
time  of  Moses,  almost  coinciding  with  that  of  some 
Christian  creeds.  The  number  three  is  continually  re- 
peated in  the  reckoning  of  the  Roman  and  Grecian  tribes. 
The  Greeks,  in  their  mythology,  divided  the  realm  of 
nature  among  the  three  great  gods,  of  the  air,  the  ocean, 
and  the  lower  world.  Plato,  the  finest  philosophical 
genius  of  antiquity,  conceived  of  the  Divine  nature  as, 
first,  the  abstract,  infinite,  unutterable  Good  ;  next,  the 
active  Intellect,  or  principle  of  Thought  ;  and  third,  the 
Vital  Power,  or  the  force  of  organic  Life.  Some  of  the 
Jews,  and  many  of  the  early  Christians,  were  students 
of  Plato,  or  of  his  followers  ;  and  they  tried  to  express 
the  same  thought  in  the  main,  by  Jewish  or  Christian 
phraseology.  One  of  the  schools  of  German  speculation 
finds  a  sort  of  trinity  in  every  force  of  nature,  —  making 
a  system  of  polarities,  each  with  its  force,  its  counter- 
force,  and  the  confluence  of  the  two  ;  while  a  well-known 
French  philosopher  reduces  all  forms  of  thought  to  the 
threefold  expression,  the  Finite,   the  Infinite,   and  the 


THE    TRINITY.  47 

Relation  between  the  two.  A  favorite  view  of  man  is, 
as  consisting  of  body,  soul,  and  spirit  :  the  facuhies  of 
the  mind  are  classed  in  the  three  departments  of  think- 
ing, feeling,  and  acting.  iVnd,  not  to  weary  you  with  a 
longer  catalogue  of  triads,  Mahomet,  who  is  celebrated 
for  his  fierce  opposition  to  any  infjingement  of  the  bare 
abstract  unity  of  God,  seems  to  have  heard  of  Christian 
belief  under  the  spurious  form  of  a  trinity,  consisting  of 
the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Mother  !  * 

These  illustrations  will  not  seem  out  of  place,  when 
we  consider  the  history  and  the  speculative  interpre- 
tation of  the  Christian  Trinity.'  They  serve  to  throw 
light  on  that  habit  or  propensity  of  the  human  mind,  to 
regard  things  under  this  threefold  aspect,  thus  giving 
a  certain  theoretical  roundness  and  completeness  to  the 
thought.  Still,  they  are  by  no  means  a  fair  account  of 
the  Trinity,  as  held  by  Christians.  That  is  better  seen 
from  the  point  of  view  of  the  religious  consciousness. 
If  w^e  analyze  the  thought  or  emotion  that  fills  the  mind 
of  a  Christian  man,  as  he  reflects  gratefully  on  the  Divine 
love  and  wisdom,  or  girds  himself  to  the  solemn  work 
of  hfe,  or  looks  forward  with  trembling  hope  beyond 
the  still  border  of  the  grave,  we  shall  find,  amongst  the 
throng  of  confused  and  mingled  sentiments,  that  three 
great  thoughts  stand  out  in  more  clear  relief,  or  are  fixed 
so  deep  as  to  underlie  all  the  rest.  I  speak  now  simply 
of  the  religious  consciousness,  which  does  not  deceive, 
and  is  substantially  alike  in  every  Christian  man.  It 
seems  a  natural  and  not  a  fanciful  description  of  that  state 
of  mind  to  say  that  it  consists  in  reverence  towards  the 
Father,  the  Author  and  Source  of  all  ;  in  a  sense  of 
personal    gratitude   and    love    towards    Christ,    who,    as 

*  Gibbon,  Chap.  L. 


48  THE    TRINITY. 

brother-man,  brought  the  heavenly  gift  of  truth  ;  and  in 
that  peculiar  emotion  or  influence  within  the  soul,  to  up- 
lift, counsel,  console,  or  strengthen,  which  the  heart  de- 
voutly recognizes  as  the  direct  operation  of  God's  spirit 
in  communion  with  that  of  man.  These  seem  to  be  the 
three  main,  perhaps  the  essential  features,  of  what,  for 
distinction's  sake,  is  called  the  Christian  consciousness ; 
this  is  the  sentiment  conveyed  in  those  beautiful  and  uni- 
versally adopted  Scripture  phrases,  the  form  of  words  in 
baptism,  and  the  apostolic  benediction  ;  and  it  is  to  this, 
as  to  the  starting-point  and  resting-place  of  the  Trinitarian 
dogma  in  the  religious  mind,  that  I  particularly  wish  to 
call  your  attention.  You  will  observe  that  I  am  speak- 
ing now  of  no  matter  of  controversy,  but  only  of  an 
experience,  or  mode  of  thought  and  feeling,  common  to 
us  all  as  Christians,  but  difl^erently  interpreted,  according 
to  our  differing  philosophies  or  forms  of  faith. 

Now,  simply  as  a  philosopher,  I  may  interpret  this 
form  of  experience  into  something  very  like  the  doctrine 
of  the  Trinity,  as  it  is  sometimes  stated.  And  this  is 
often  done,  —  making  one  of  those  transcendental  modes 
of  Orthodoxy  to  which  I  once  alluded.  For  instance,  it 
gratifies  not  only  my  religious  feeling,  but  my  metaphysi- 
cal fancy,  to  regard  God  under  this  threefold  relation 
towards  his  creatures, — as  the  Almighty,  Infinite  Cre- 
ator, the  Sovereign  of  the  Universe,  the  Father  Ever- 
lasting ;  next,  as  the  fountain-head  of  all  spiritual  life  and 
wisdom,  which  have  flowed  down,  as  it  were,  and  be- 
come manifest  to  us  in  the  flesh,  or  in  the  human  life  of 
Jesus  of  Nazareth,  the  author  and  medium  of  faith  to  so 
many  affectionate  disciples  ;  and  thirdly,  as  the  ever- 
present  Spirit  of  truth  and  purity,  to  plead  with  the  sin- 
ful heart,  to  console  the  sorrowful,  to  nerve  and  animate 


THE    TRINITY.  49 

the  soul  to  the  endurance  of  hardship  and  the  perfecting 
of  its  work. 

This  form  of  thought,  I  say,  may  be  grateful  both  to 
my  religious  feeling  and  my  speculative  taste.  It  may 
give  a  clearness  and  fulness  to  my  thought  of  the  Deity, 
and  a  reality  to  my  sense  of  his  presence,  which  I  could 
not  have  to  an  equal  degree  in  any  other  way.  It  makes 
what  has  been  called  a  subjective,  or  philosophical,  or 
modal  trinity,  —  depending  for  its  proof,  not  on  Scrip- 
ture, but  simply  on  the  metaphysical  taste  and  habit  of 
the  mind.  Not  but  that  the  Divine  nature  is  complete 
within  itself,  in  whatever  way  we  view  it  ;  but  this  is  the 
way  in  which  it  is  best  recognized  by  my  human  faculty. 
I  distinctly  feel  and  realize  the* religious  meaning  of  the 
Scripture  phrase.  Father,  Son,  and  holy  spirit,  or  in- 
fluence. This  makes  up,  in  general  terms,  the  sum  of 
my  religious  thought  ;  that  is,  as  far  as  the  object  of  my 
homage  and  reverence  is  concerned.  And  I  am  thus 
full  and  distinct  in  stating  it,  partly  because  it  shows  how 
the  religious  sense  preceded  the  dogmatic^  and  partly 
because  in  this  we  see  the  exact  nature  and  extent  of  the 
true  Scripture  docirine,  as  I  understand  it.  So  far  we 
may  go,  no  farther.  As  an  object  of  reverent  sentiment, 
we  closely  associate  the  three  ;  any  speculative  dogma 
beyond  is  unwarranted,  I  think,  by  any  thing  in  the  lan- 
guage of  Scripture,  and  directly  at  variance  with  all 
we  can  understand  of  the  laws  and  processes  of  human 
reason. 

To  ilk  ♦rate  this  last  point  more  fully,  I  ask  your 
attention  to  the  three  propositions  which  I  shall  seek  to 
establish.  The  church  docrine  of  the  Trinity  's  set 
forth  as  the  foundation  and  first  article  of  the  Oithodox 
creed  ;  it  is  maintained  to  be  essential  to  a  propei  under- 
5 


50  THE    TRINITY. 

Standing  of  the  Scriptures,  and  even  to  the  soul's  salva- 
tion ;  it  is  vindicated  as  the  only  theory  of  the  Divine 
nature  which  could  make  the  work  of  redemption  pos- 
sible ;  and  asserted,  moreover,  to  be  borne  out  and  jus- 
tified by  every  variety  of  proof.  I  propose  to  show, 
first,  that  the  evidence  for  it  is  utterly  insufficient  ;  next, 
that  it  has  always  been  held  or  defined  with  confusion  and 
contradiction  among  those  professing  to  believe  it  ;  and 
finally,  that  the  bare  assertion  of  it  involves  the  mind  in 
an  inextricable  dilemma  between  two  opposing  theories, 
either  of  which  completely  contradicts  and  subverts  the 
proper  meaning  asserted  to  belong  to  it. 

The  word  Trinity  (or  triunity)  signifies,  as  nearly  as 
possible,  "  three  in  one,"  or  rather,  a  '^  threefold  one- 
ness"; and  its  meaning  as  a  theological  dogma  is  this  : 
that  in  the  Divine  nature  are  three  persons,  or  distinct, 
intelligent,  conscious  agents,  each  capable  of  separate 
offices  and  a  separate  will,  each  in  some  sense  embody- 
ing the  full  perfection  of  the  Deity,  each  separately 
a  proper  object  of  adoration,  each  having  his  own  pecu- 
liar share  in  the  great  work  of  human  redemption,  —  so 
distinct  from  one  another,  in  short,  as  to  be  capable  of 
counsel,  intercourse,  and  sympathy,  yet  so  mysteriously 
connected,  that  they  form  together  one  Infinite,  Al- 
mighty, Eternal  God.  Of  the  ideas  blended  and  con- 
fused in  this  conception  I  shall  have  more  to  say  pres- 
ently ;  but  this  short  statement  is  enough  to  make  the 
argument  I  am  about  to  use  intelligible. 

I.  The  evidence  adduced  in  support  of  the  Trinity, 
as  thus  described,  is  deficient  and  inconclusive.  Let  it 
be  remembered,  that  I  am  not  arguing  now  about  a  meta- 
physical trinity,  which  needs  and  claims  no  other  argu- 
ment except  as  its  own  merit  recommends  it  to  the  mind  ; 


THE    TRINITY.  .  51 

but  about  a  doctrine  claimed  to  rest  on  Scriptural  au- 
thority and  to  be  borne  out  by  Scriptural  proof.  Neither 
am  I  reasoning  now  with  those  who  profess  (as  the  Cath- 
olics) to  take  it  on  th»  authority  of  a  visible,  infallible 
church.  Their  claim  does  not  admit  of  argument,  —  at 
least  here*  and  now,  —  any  more  than  that  of  those  (if 
'there  be  any)  who  profess  to  knoic  its  truth  from  the 
direct  teaching  of  the  Spirit.  What  I  desire  is  to  rea- 
son with  Protestants,  candid  and  serious  minds,  —  with 
those  who  profess  in  the  views  they  hold  and  enforce  to 
go  no  further  than  the  sense  of  Scripture  will  guide  them. 
Their  attention  I  invite  to  my  statement,  that  the  evi- 
dence for  the  Trinity,  said  to  be  so  strong,  is  unsubstan- 
tial, defective,  and  utterly  insufficient. 

I  might  begin  by  alluding  to  the  well-known  fact,  that 
many  theologians,  chiefly  of  the  English  Church,  have 
acknowledged  the  insufficiency  of  the  Scripture  evidence, 
and  so  have  insisted  on  the  need  of  church  authority  to 
establish  it.  The  doctrine  itself  they  would  not  aban- 
don. It  was  inherited  from  the  Roman  Church,  which 
professes  it  not  from  Scripture  but  from  tradition  ;  and 
without  the  paramount  authority  of  that  Church,  they 
thought,  it  must  go  to  the  ground.  Accordingly,  many  of 
this  class  of  theologians  have  embraced  the  Roman  faith. 
But  I  do  not  insist  upon  this  fact,  because  it  might  un- 
fairly 'warp  and  prejudice  your  minds.  I  only  refer  to  it 
to  show  that  Unitarians  are  not  alone  in  contending  that 
the  doctrine  is  not  sufficiently  sustained  by  Scripture,  — 
though  these,  indeed,  think  it  is  corroborated  and  implied 
there,  which  we  do  not.  But  let  this  be  borne  in  mind, 
that  the  burden  of  proof  rests  on  that  side.  Our  Ortho- 
dox friends  offer  to  provg  to  us  the  Trinity  out  of  Scrip- 
ture.    What  is  the  amount  and  value  of  that  proof  .'^ 


52 


THE    TRINITY. 


By  their  own  acknowledgment,  the  doctrine  is  one, 
not  of  direct  revelation,  but  of  inference  ;  not  exphcitly 
taught  in  Scripture,  but  only  alluded  to,  and  made  out 
from  comparison  of  various  p*rts.  Few  persons  who 
have  not  given  particular  attention  to  it  are  aware  how 
scanty  is  the  Scripture  proof.  The  word  Trinity  itself, 
it  is  well  known,  is  not  in  the  Bible,  and  was  not  intro- 
duced till  a  hundred  years  after  the  time  of  Christ,  and 
then,  probably,  to  express  something  quite  different  from 
what  we  now  mean  by  it.  The  only  passages  in  the 
Bible  where  the  three  Divine  persons  are  even  supposed 
to  be  ii'  ntioned  together  are  these  :  —  1.  The  formula  of 
baptism  (Matt,  xxviii.  19),  "  in  the  name  of  the  Father, 
and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost."  This  form  of 
words  is  employed  in  every  church  where  the  rite  is 
used,  by  ourselves  as  well  as  others,  without  any  suspi- 
cion of  a  different  meaning  than  what  I  before  alluded  to. 
2.  The  apostolic  benediction  (2  Cor.  xiii.  14),  "  The 
grace  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  the  love  of  God, 
and  the  communion  of  the  Holy  Ghost  be  with  you  all." 
This  is  used  in  Unitarian  churches  every  Sunday  ;  and, 
to  ray  mind,  beautifully  expresses  those  three  features  or 
elements  of  "  the  Christian  consciousness."  3.  The  fa- 
mous passage  (1  John  v.  7),  "  There  are  three  that  bear 
record  in  heaven,  the  Father,  the  Word,  and  the  Holy 
Spirit."  This,  to  my  mind,  has  no  Trinitarian  meaning 
at  all,  unless  the  metaphysical  theory  I  spoke  of  before. 
It  is  well  known  by  every  critic  to  be  a  note  or  comment, 
not  belonging  to  the  Epistle  ;  and  any  person  can  see, 
by  reading  the  passage  carefully,  that  it  breaks  up  the 
connection  of  the  thought,  and  spoils  the  sense. 

Besides  these  three,  the  onlj^  passages  I  find  referred 
to  in  an  Orthodox  article  on  the  Trinity,  for  illustration, 


THE    TRINITY.  53 

are  these  :  —  1.  "  God  said,  Let  us  make  man,"  &c. 
(Gen.  i.  26.)  2.  "  My  mouth  it  hath  commanded,  and 
his  spirit  it  hath  gathered  them."  (Isaiah  xxxiv.  16.) 
3.  "  The  Lord  God,  and  his  spirit,  hath  sent  me." 
(Isaiah  xlviii.  16.)  4.  "  We  will  come  unto  him  [the 
obedient  disciple],  and  make  our  abode  with  him." 
(John  xiv.  23.)  5.  "  Lie  to  the  Holy  Ghost ;  ....  not 
unto  men,  but  unto  God."  (Acts  v.  3,  4.)  6.  "  The 
Lord  direct  your  hearts  into  the  love  of  God,  and  into 
the  patient  waiting  for  Christ"  (2  Thes.  iii.  5) ;  that  is, 
for  his  coming  at  the  end  of  the  world,  which  they 
thought  was  very  near.  These  are  all  the  passages  re- 
ferred to,  and  therefore  may  be  considered  as  the  strong- 
est. Where  would  one  find  any  hint  of  a  Trinity  in 
these  ? 

The  argument  then,  as  most  fairly  stated  by  its  sup- 
porters, is  this  :  —  The  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Spirit 
are  separately  spoken  of  as  God,  or  as  having  Divine 
offices  and  attributes  ;  and  putting  such  expressions  to- 
gether, (like  the  several  partial  answers  to  a  complicated 
equation,)  we  obtain  the  doctrine,  which  then  becomes 
the  basis  of  our  whole  theory  of  redemption.  The  argu- 
ment is  briefly  answered.  Respecting  God  the  Father, 
of  course  there  is  no  controversy.  As  for  those  passages 
which  seem  to  identify  Christ  with  God,  they  properly 
belong  to  the  next  Discourse,  where  the  doctrine  of  his 
proper  Divinity  will  be  separately  considered.  And  as  for 
those  which  speak  of  the  Holy  Spirit  as  God,  it  is  quite 
enough  to  say  that  this  is  no  point  of  controversy  between 
us.  We  never  think,  on  our  part,  of  the  Holy  Spirit  as 
any  thing  separate  from  God  himself,  —  only  God  regard- 
ed in  a  peculiar  manner,  as  acting  directly  on  the  soul  of 
man.  Whether  we  translate  the  word  spirit  "  breath" 
5* 


54  THE    TRINITY. 

or  "  influence,"  it  signifies  the  same  thing  ;  and  refers 
simply  to  that  fact  recognized  in  the  rehgious  emotion, 
—  that  point  of  devotional  experience  and  conviction 
in  every  Christian  soul.  And  in  saying  this,  vt^e  have 
disposed  of  absolutely  the  whole  of  the  Scripture  testi- 
mony supposed  to  bear  upon  the  Trinity.  Thus  it  is 
reduced,  so  far  as  this  branch  of  evidence  is  concerned, 
(and  we  admit  no  other,)  to  the  single  question  of  the 
Deity  of  Christ,  —  to  be  taken  up  and  answered  more 
fully  at  another  time. 

A  third  point  is  very  important,  as  further  illustrating 
the  feebleness  of  this  evidence.  Not  only,  as  you  have 
seen,  or  may  easily  ascertain,  every  single  passage  of 
Scripture  may  be  and  has  been  interpreted  by  the  op- 
posers  of  this  doctrine  so  as  to  conform  easily  to  their 
views  ;  but,  as  we  are  told  on  the  best  authority,  each 
single  text  has  been  conceded  or  explained  away  by 
some  one  critic,  himself  a  firm  believer  in  the  doctrine. 
We  need  not  quote  a  single  Unitarian  writer,  —  we 
may  confine  ourselves  strictly  to  Trinitarian  authorities 
to  justify  our  own  interpretations.  This  fact,  often  as- 
serted, has  been  abundantly  proved  by  a  volume  in- 
dustriously compiled,  in  which  each  passage  is  taken 
up  separately,  and  its  Trinitarian  interpretation  set  aside 
and  refuted  by  some  Orthodox  authority.*  . 

Now  I  do  not  urge  this  point  so  strongly  as  some 
might  do,  becaulse  1  know  that  men  professing  Ortho- 
doxy may  very  often  be  regarded  in  their  own  church 
as  very  loose  and  unsound  critics.      The  fact,  no  doubt, 

*  The  Concessions  of  Trinitarians.  Being  a  Selection  of  Extracts 
from  the  Writings  of  the  Most  Eminent  Biblical  Critics  and  Com- 
mentators. By  John  Wilson,  Author  of  "Scripture  Proofs  and 
Scriptural  Illustrations  of  Unitarianisrn."     8vo.     pp.614. 


THE    TRINITY.  55 

is  worth  something  ;  but  to  me  it  is  not  as  interesting  as 
another,  namely,  that  the  classes  of  proof  once  relied 
on  with  almost  equal  assurance  have  been  abandoned 
one  by  one,  till  now  only  an  insignificant  number  of 
"  proof-texts  "  remains,  to  which  any  candid  reasoner 
is  willing  to  apply.  For  instance,  the  plural  name  of 
God  in  Hebrew  —  once  very  much  insisted  on  —  is 
completely  shown  to  be  no  argument  at  all,  —  the  same 
thing  being  the  case  with  Hebrew  names  of  magistrates 
and  other  titles  of  honor.  The  number  three  —  often 
found  in  the  Old  Testament,  (as  in  the  "  three  men  " 
who  appeared  to  Abraham,  the  "  mouth  of  three  wit- 
nesses," the '' threefold  cord  not  easily  broken,")  —  and 
the  ascription,  "  Holy,  holy,  holy,"  addressed  to  God 
in  the  Revelation,  are  no  longer  held  to  have  a  mystic 
meaning,  or  to  hint  at  the  trinity  of  persons  in  the  God- 
head. The  form  of  argument  has  very  much  changed, 
its  scope  being  narrowed  down  to  the  few  points  al- 
ready spoken  of.  And  the  most  confident  assertions  of 
the  Trinitarian  dogma  made  at  the  present  day,  (except 
by  those  who  take  it  expressly  on  church  authority,) 
are,  after  all,  from  the  point  of  view  of  speculative  phi- 
losophy, and  not  of  Scriptural  interpretation.  With 
the  theories  of  speculative  philosophy,  except  what 
I  said  at  the  commencement  of  my  exposition,  I  have 
nothing  at  present  to  do. 

II.  I  come,  then,  to  my  second  proposition,  which 
is,  that  the  Trinity  has  always  been  interpreted  in  the 
most  contradictory  and  uncertain  way  by  those  who 
have  professed  to  hold  it. 

As  is  well  known  to  every  reader  of  church  history, 
the  early  centuries  were  full  of  controversy  on  the  sub- 
ject of  the  ideas  incorporated   in  this  doctrine  ;   and  it 


56  THE    TRINITY. 

was  not  till  "  later  than  the  middle  of  the  fifth  cenluiy  " 
that  the  final  shape  was  given  to  it  in  the  Athanasian 
creed.  And  this  controversy  is  by  no  means  difficult 
to  account  for,  if  we  suppose  that  the  first  Christians 
cherished  simply  the  devout  emotion,  the  living  faith, 
the  obedient  conscience,  and  were  content  not  to  pro- 
nounce dogmatically  on  an  abstract  theory  they  had 
never  heard  of.  But,  as  I  think,  it  is  perfectly  unac- 
countable, if  we  suppose  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity 
to  have  been  revealed.  A  single  sentence,  explicitly 
said  and  unequivocal  in  its  language,  would  have  put 
the  whole  question  to  rest,  if  such  a  sentence  could 
have  been  quoted  from  Christ  or  his  apostles,  —  which 
was  never  pretended,  unless  in  the  traditions  of  the 
Roman  Church.  And  if  he  left  his  own  nature  unex- 
plained, except  in  vague  and  ambiguous  hints,  which 
either  side  interprets  easily  to  its  own  pleasure,  it 
seems  very  clear  that  the  more  entirely  we  believe  in 
him,  the  more  we  shall  be  convinced  that  no  such  doc- 
trine can  be  an  essential  part  of  his  religion. 

The  force  of  this  circumstance  will  be  seen  yet  more 
clearly,  when  we  consider  that  these  first  controversies, 
which  brought  the  doctrine  into  shape,  were  with  a  very 
different  purpose  from  the  style  of  argument  held  now. 
The  "  plan  of  redemption,"  requiring  the  vicarious 
atonement  and  the  suffering  of  a  Divine  being,  was  not 
the  prominent  idea,  —  if,  indeed,  it  was  ever  thought  of, 
—  unless  in  some  heretical.  Gnostic  theories.  To 
satisfy  the  speculative  tendency  of  the  Greek  philoso- 
phy, and  to  vie  with  each  other  in  doing  supposed 
honor  to  Christ,  —  to  assign  to  him  (so  to  speak)  a 
rank  in  the  universe  equivalent  to  the  national  sover- 
eignty claimed  by  the  Jews  for  their  Messiah,  —  seems 


THE    TRINITY.  57 

to  have  been  the  motive  uppermost.  The  coequal 
Divinity  of  the  Spirit  was  an  afterthought,  unknown 
to  the  Nicene  creed  (A.  D.  325),  which  (after  a  full 
statement  of  the  Divine  origin  and  nature  of  Christ) 
says  briefly,  "  And  [I  believe]  in  the  Holy  Spirit,"  — 
which  may  be  no  more  than  the  Divine  influence  on 
the  soul.  The  Trinity,  in  its  present  dogmatic  sense, 
—  framed  to  meet  the  exigencies  of  the  Orthodox  idea 
of  an  infinite  sacrifice  being  needed,  —  I  do  not  think 
was  once  approached  in  the  earlier  centuries,  unless  in 
those -schools  of  Oriental  speculation  called  Gnosticism, 
which  were  one  and  all  condemned  as  heretical.  So 
that  we  have,  as  I  conceive  myself  justified  in  assert- 
ing, a  total  diversity  and  contradiction,  at  the  outset, 
between  the  ancient  and  modern  Trinity,  —  the  mean 
ing,  intention,  and  fundamental  idea  of  the  doctrine  be- 
ing quite  oppositely  held. 

And  a  few  words  will  show  the  reason  of  this  dif 
ference.  In  the  earliest  form  given  to  the  doctrine, 
we  see  the  influence  of  three  elements  completely  for- 
eign to  the  modern  mind,  —  the  vague  Oriental  The- 
osophy  and  idea  of  incarnation  of  the  gods  ;  the  Greek 
speculation,  consisting  very  much  in  technical  distinc- 
tions and  verbal  analysis,  wholly  divorced  from  objective 
scientific  truth  ;  and  the  mystic  symbolic  representations 
of  the  Egyptian  priesthood.  But  the  last  two  in  par- 
ticular were  not  so  alien  from  the  scholastic  and  mystic 
theology  of  the  Middle  Ages,  and  the  Trinitarian  dog- 
ma became  thoroughly  engrafted  on  the  received  creed. 
Still,  as  I  have  said,  its  meaning  in  course  of  time  be- 
came quite  different.  The  modern  dogma  retains  the 
ancient  form,  but  interpolates  a  new  significance,  and 
makes    it   merely   the    basis    of    the    whole    Orthodox 


58 


THE    TRINITY. 


scheme  of  redemption.  From  a  primary,  it  becomes 
a  secondary  point  of  faith.  The  Athanasian  creed 
says,  that  without  belief  in  it,  (the  highest-toned  state- 
ment of  the  Trinity,)  a  man  shall  "doubtless  perish 
everlastingly"  ;  simply  adding,  that  Christ  ''  died  for  our 
salvation,"  and  is  to  be  our  judge.  Modern  Orthodoxy 
says  the  Atonement  is  the  main  point  of  faith,  —  the 
other  being  subsidiary,  and  only  essential  because  of 
that  ;  while  the  absolute  need  of  the  sacrifice  and  of 
belief  in  it  is  most  explicitly  set  forth.*  The  abstract 
doctrine  then^  the  reason  of  it  noio,  we  find  to  be  the 
real  point  of  faith.  This  difference  shows  strikingly 
the  change  that  has  come  about  in  the  central  signifi- 
cance of  the  Trinitarian  dogma. 

But  even  among  the  supporters  of  the  modern  dogma, 
there  is  no  more  agreement  in  its  interpretation.  This 
was  my  reason  for  not  insisting  more  strongly  on  the 
fact,  that  some  one  or  other  among  them  rejects  the 
Trinitarian  meaning  from  each  single  passage  brought  in 
support  of  it.  But  this  diversity,  while  it  weakens  the 
force  of  that  particular  argument,  is  itself  even  more 
fatal  to  the  doctrine.  It  cannot  be  so  stated^  that  the 
mass  of  its  supporters  will  accept  the  statement.  Once 
get  beyond  a  iew  vague  and  general  phrases,  which 
mean  much  or  little  according  as  we  please,  and  which 
are  worn  threadbare  by  use,  so  as  to  be  not  much  more 
than  substitutes  for  thought  instead  of  its  expression,  — 
you  launch  at  once  into  a  sea  of  contradictions.  The 
Church  (i.  e.  the  "  Orthodox  "  portion  of  it)  has  vi- 
brated from  the  first  between  the  two  horns  of  a  dilem- 
ma, grasping  either  according  as  there  seemed  more 
peril  from  the  other. 

*  See  Religious  Encyclopaedia,  Art.  "  Athanasius." 


THE    TRINITY.  59 

The  xVthanasIan  creed  says  we  must  "  neither  confound 
the  persons,  nor  divide  the  substance  "  ;  and  one  or  the 
other  of  these  two  has  been  done,  in  every  attempt  to 
make  a  plausible  comment  on  the  doctrine.  One  class 
of  expounders  is  always  accused  of  destroying  the  per- 
sonal identity  of  Christ,  or  else  of  detracting  from  his 
true  dignity  ;  and  the  other,  of  setting  up  three  distinct 
gods  on  the  throne  of  the  universe,  —  a  notion  utterly 
strange  and  idolatrous  to  the  general  sense  of  Chris- 
tendom. 

I  am  not  speaking  now  of  the  controversy  between 
Trinitarians  and  Unitarians  ;  but  of  that  among  the  Or- 
thodox themselves.  Some  dangerous  heresy  has  always 
been  detected,  lurking  under  the  disguise  of  every  pos- 
sible interpretation  ;  and  those  have  uniformly  succeeded 
best  who  have  simply  stated  the  bald  dogma,  in  the  most 
paradoxical  form  possible,  and  have  left  the  explanation 
as  a  "  mystery,"  to  shift  for  itself.  Thus  in  the  Eng- 
lish Church  the  debate  has  been  plentifully  waged,  — 
South  and  Clarke,  on  the  one  hand,  being  regarded  as 
Sabellian  or  Arian  heretics,  while  Sherlock,  Bull,  and 
Waterland  have  the  reputation  of  having  even  overstated 
the  intrinsic  paradox,  in  their  bold  and  zealous  defence 
of  Orthodoxy.  The  Trinity  of  Coleridge,  though  he 
praises  these  last  defenders  of  the  faith,  and  is  even  big- 
oted and  intolerant  in  alluding  to  his  old  associates,  the 
Unitarians,  is  looked  on  by  some  w^ith  no  little  suspicion, 
as  a  metaphysical,  German,  half-spurious  Trinity,  after 
all,  savoring  more  of  Schelling  than  of  Paul  or  John. 
The  most  sincere  believers  have  now  and  then  to  pro- 
test against  the  extreme  dogmatism  and  extravagant  lan- 
guage of  some  Trinitarian  advocates,  while  very  few 
w^ould  adopt  the  old  test-phrases  of  Orthodoxy,  —  such 


60  THE    TRINITY. 

as  to  call  Mary  the  mother  of  God,  or  to  say  that  the 
Father,  or  the  Trinity,  suffered  on  the  cross.  The 
whole  tone  of  declaration  on  the  subject  has  become 
softened  down  from  dogmatism,  and  is  tending  towards 
mysticism  or  metaphysics.  And  it  is  not  hazarding  too 
much  to  say,  that,  if  those  professing  Trinitarianism  every- 
where were  to  make  a  frank  and  full  explanation  to  one 
another  of  what  they  mean  by  it  exactly,  very  many  of 
them  would  find  more  real  sympathy  in  the  views  of 
some  heretics  or  dissenters  than  in  the  majority  of  those 
in  their  own  ranks, 

III.  I  have  but  little  time  or  space  left  for  my  re- 
maining proposition, — that  the  Trinitarian  dogma  in- 
volves the  mind  in  an  inextricable  dilemma  between  two 
opposing  theories,  either  of  which  completely  contra- 
dicts and  subverts  the  proper  meaning  asserted  to  belong 
to  it.  Neither,  after  what  has  been  already  said,  is  it 
necessary  to  illustrate  this  point  at  any  length.  Indeed, 
I  may  appear  to  have  anticipated  in  one  way  what  I  am 
about  to  repeat  in  another.  In  other  words,  what  has 
just  been  shown  as  an  historical  fact,  I  wish  to  exhibit 
now  as  a  logical  necessity.  And  this  I  cannot  prove, 
but  only  state. 

I  have  said  that  minds  of  a  certain  class  find  a  satis- 
faction in  representing  to  themselves  the  Divine  nature 
as  manifested  in  three  different  ways,  or  modes  ;  and 
this  habit  of  thought  I  have  called  a  modal  or  philosoph- 
ical trinity,  — regarding  God  in  his  several  capacities  or 
attributes,  as  Creator,  Teacher  or  Redeemer,  and  Sanc- 
tifier.  This  way  of  thinking  I  have  been  careful  to  dis- 
tinguish from  the  Orthodox  dogma  with  which  it  is  some- 
times confounded  ;  and,  indeed,  the  advocates  of  that 
dogma  are  as  anxious  as  any  one  that  one  should  not  be 


THE    TRINITY.  61 

taken  for  the  other.  I  bring  it  up,  partly  to  put  that 
distinction  in  clearer  light  ;  but  chiefly  to  show  that,  in 
abandoning  the  doctrine,  we  do  not  abandon  the  religious 
truth  which  it  may  be  held  to  represent.  We  do  not 
divest  the  Deity  of  any  of  his  functions,  or  remove  him 
farther  from  the  human  soul.  What  seems  to  us  bar- 
barous, scholastic,  and  unsound,  in  the  language  of  the 
creeds,  we  freely  reject.  But  our  idea  of  God  is  not 
as  if  we  took  away  those  attributes  of  mercy  and  grace^ 
or  counsel,  which  are  especially  assigned  to  the  second 
and  third  persons  of  the  Trinity.  The  Divine  nature, 
in  its  threefold  or  manifold  modes  of  operation,  express- 
es to  us  the  entire  sum  of  those  ideas  of  majesty,  ten- 
derness, and  near  communion  which  have  ever  been 
held  to  belong  in  peculiar  to  the  Christian's  God. 

But  when  we  have  said  this,  we  have  said  all.  This 
is  the  only  concession  or  abatement  we  make  in  favor  of 
a  dogma  so  long  associated  with  and  shaping  the  Chris- 
tian belief.  We  not  only  refuse  it  wholly  in  its  dogmat- 
ic meaning,  but  we  say  it  cannot  be  stated  intelligibly, 
so  as  to  make  it  clear  to  our  reason  what  it  is  we  are 
called  on  to  believe.  We  can  go  no  farther  than  the 
religious  or  philosophical  sentiment,  declared  before. 
If  we  advance  a  single  step  beyond,  we  fall  at  once 
upon  that  dilemma  which  the  best  minds  in  Christen- 
dom have  vexed  themselves  in  vain  to  solve,  these  thou- 
sand years.  We  say  freely,  that,  not  only  it  has  not 
been  solved,  but  in  the  nature  of  things  it  cannot  be 
solved.  We  must  either  divide  the  substance  or  con- 
found the  persons.  Once  get  beyond  the  most  vague 
statement  of  an  intangible  and  inexplicable  dogma,  and 
one  or  the  other  of  these  two  we  must  do.  Either  we 
have  three  gods  for  one,  three  objects  of  worship  in 
6 


62  '  THE    TRINITY. 

every  sense,  three  beings  as  distinct  as  Peter,  James, 
and  John,  or  else  we  simply  regard  the  one  God  from 
three  several  points  of  view,  to  facilitate  our  imperfect 
comprehension,  and  our  Trinity  reduces  itself  to  the 
harmless,  convenient  theory  which  has  been  stated  be- 
fore. The  only  relief  from  this  is  in  a  form  of  words 
which  may  mean  as  much  or  as  little  as  we  please  ; 
which  says  and  unsays  the  same  thing  in  a  breath,  —  inter- 
changing the  words  three  and  one,  one  and  three,  more 
like  a  verbal  legerdemain  or  sophistical  play  of  words, 
like  a  riddle  or  a  phrase  studied  to  bewilder  and  deceive, 
than  like  a  proposition  meant  to  be  understood.  We 
may  say,  if  we  will,  that  we  believe  in  the  words,  es- 
pecially if  repeated  to  ns  on  an  authority  we  respect  ; 
but  if  you  ask  whether  we  believe  what  the  words  mean, 
we  must  frankly  acknowledge  we  do  not  know  what  that 
is,  and  have  never  been  able  to  ascertain.  What  has 
perplexed  the  best  minds  in  Christendom,  and  set  them 
at  variance,  we  may  well  be  excused  if  we  refrain  from 
the  attempt  to  solve. 

And  let  us  not  be  put  off  with  the  assurance  that  this 
is  a  mystery,  which  is  above  our  power  to  comprehend. 
We  know  what  a  mystery  is  in  things^  and  trust  we 
have  the  modesty  reverently  to  set  limits  to  our  intellect- 
ual pride  or  ambition.  But  a  mystery  of  ivords^  as  we 
think,  cannot  be  any  thing  more  than  an  enigma  or  puz- 
zle. If  you  ask  us  reverently  to  adore  the  infinite  and 
incomprehensible  nature  of  God,  we  readily  join  with 
you.  If  you  ask  us  to  acknowledge  our  ignorance  of 
the  modes  of  his  working,  even  in  so  simple  a  thing  as 
the  forming  of  a  grain  of  sand,  or  the  growth  of  a  blade 
of  grass,  no  less  than  in  the  majesty  and  glory  of  his 
boundless  univ-erse,  it  is  wljat,  with  unfeigned  humility,  we 


THE    TRINITY.  63 

must  always  do.  It  is  only  when  a  proposition  contra- 
dictory or  unintelligible  in  terms  is  offered  us,  and  our 
belief  of  it  demanded  under  that  abused  name  of  mys- 
tery, that  we  recoil,  and  say  we  must  first  know  what 
the  proposition  means.  With  so  plain  an  alternativ^e  be- 
fore us,  of  two  interpretations,  which  we  are  told  are 
equally  false  and  perilous,  we  must  say  that,  to  our  sim- 
pler understanding,  there  seems  nothing  left  to  believe  at 
all.  It  is  not  true  that  where  mystery  begins  religion 
ends  ;  but  it  is  both  true  and  necessary,  that  where  mys- 
tery begins  there  is  an  end  of  human  dogmatism,  —  there 
is  an  end  of  demanding  assent  to  particular  opinions  and 
definitions,  whether  yours  or  mine. 

Such,  then,  in  conclusion,  is  the  position  in  which  we 
find  the  Church  dogma  of  the  Trinity  ;  —  a  doctrine 
made  up  of  inferences  and  obscurity  ;  established,  by  an 
uncertain  and  fluctuating  majority,  in  the  midst  of  contro- 
versy, doubt,  and  bitter  feuds  ;  resting  on  so  scanty  and 
fragmentary  evidence  ;  held  differently  and  defended  on 
different  grounds  from  age  to  age,  from  place  to  place, 
from  church  to  church  ;  constantly  liable  to  the  hazard 
of  fatal  misinterpretation  on  either  hand  ;  trembling  (as 
it  were)  always,  in  its  best  estate,  in  that  position  of 
unstable  equilibrium  between  two  contending  heresies, 
each  of  which  has  the  merit  of  being  distinct  and  logical, 
while  it  is  doubtful  whether  this  has  any  signification  at 
all  that  can  be  expressed  in  words.  I  appeal  to  your 
good  sense  and  candor,  I  will  not  say  to  pronounce  the 
doctrine  false,  —  believe  and  think  as  you  will  in  regard 
to  it,  — but  to  say  whether  my  assent  is  to  be  so  sharp- 
ly demanded,  whether  we  are  to  be  exiled  and  accused 
of  irreverence,  and  denied  the  Christian  name,  because 
we  refuse  it. 


64  THE    TRINITY. 

Its  evidence  we  regard  as  insufficient  and  unsound.' 
Its  meaning  its  best  friends  are  not  agreed  upon.  Its 
statement  involves  inextricable  confusion,  and  an  alterna- 
tive between  two  virtual  denials  of  it.  Can  such  a  per- 
plexing mystery  as  that  be  a  lest  of  faith  ?  My  reason- 
ing may  not  show  it  to  be  untrue  ;  but  so  much  uncer- 
tainty, at  least,  is  shown  to  rest  upon  it,  that  dogmatism 
is  utterly  out  of  place.  Sharing,  we  trust,  in  the  Chris- 
tian consciousness  of  believers,  we  do  not  deny  the  re- 
ligious significance  which  its  terms  perhaps  imply, —  God 
is  our  Father.  Christ  is  our  Teacher  and  Saviour. 
The  Holy  Spirit  is  our  Connforter.  But  not  in  that 
vague,  mysterious,  unintelligible  sense  in  which  we  are 
told  that  these  three,  as  separate,  coeternal.  Infinite  be- 
ings, combine  to  make  the  Triune  God.  "To  us,"  in 
the  words  of  Paul,  "  there  is  but  one  God,  the  Father, 
of  whom  are  all  things,  and  we  in  him  ;  and  one  Lord 
Jesus  Christ,^by  whom  are  all  things,*  and  we  by  him." 


DISCOURSE   IV. 


THE  DEITY  OF  CHRIST. 

IF  HE  CALLED  THEM  GODS  UNTO  WHOM  THE  WORD  OF  GOD 
CAME,  AND  THE  SCRIPTURE  CANNOT  BE  BROKEN;  SAY  YE 
OF  HIM  WHOM  THE  FATHER  HATH  SANCTIFIED  AND  SENT 
INTO  THE  WORLD,  THOU  BLASPHEMEST,  BECAUSE  I  SAID, 
I    AM    THE    SON    OF    GOD?  Johfl    X.  35,  36. 

The  object  of  the  last  Discourse  was  to  review  the 
doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  —  its  evidence  and  its  interpreta- 
tion ;  and  to  show  that,  whatever  may  be  claimed  for  its 
truth  in  the  abstract  possibility  of  things,  yet  it  never  has 
been  and  never  can  be  so  established  as  to  serve  for  a 
sufficient  basis  to  our  faith.  If  what  I  then  said  was 
accurate,  the  Trinity  cannot  be  used  to  prove  the  Deity 
of  Christ  ;  my  aim  now  is  to  show  that  the  Deity  of 
Christ  cannot  be  used  to  prove  the  Trinity.  Both  are 
essential  parts  of  the  theory  of  Atonement,  which  is  the 
keystone  of  the  whole  fabric,  the  characteristic  feature 
of  the  whole  plan. 

The  Orthodox  statement  is,  that  Jesus  of  Nazareth 
was  really  and  truly  God  ;  that  the  Divine  and  human 
natures  were  mysteriously  blended  in  his  soul ;  that  hav- 
6* 


66  THE    DEITY    OF    CHRIST. 

ing  existed  from  all  eternity,  "  not  made  nor  created, 
but  begotten,"  coeternal  with  the  eternal  God,  the  per- 
sonal, conscious  agent  in  the  work  of  creation,  he  volun- 
tarily took  the  condition  of  humanity,  and  became  son  of 
a  woman  ;  that,  for  the  sake  of  fulfilling  the  only  terms  on 
which  man  could  be  pardoned  and  reconciled,  he  under- 
went the  burden,  humiliation,  pain,  and  death  necessary 
to  the  infinite  sacrifice  ;  and  that  in  rising  from  the  dead, 
and  ascending  to  heaven,  he  was  only  resuming  the 
glorious  state  and  robes  of  majesty,  with  which  he  had 
been  invested  through  countless  ages  before.  I  omit 
whatever  may  seem  contradictory  or  out  of  taste  in  the 
representations  often  made,  only  stating  the  essential 
doctrine  in  its  plainest  and  simplest  form,  so  as  to  begin 
with  as  distinct  a  notion  as  possible  of  what  it  means. 

Such,  in  general  terms,  is  the  proposition,  or  series  of 
propositions,  which  I  am  to  discuss.  In  many  respects, 
all  discussion  on  the  subject  must  be  unsatisfactory. 
The  nature  and  office  of  Christ  are  almost  always  spoken 
of  in  terms  which  appeal  rather  to  our  religious  affection 
than  to  our  intellectual  discernment.  Partly  from  sin- 
cere veneration  or  love,  partly  from  a  wish  not  to  be 
behindhand  in  an  essential  article  of  faith,  different  sects 
have  contended  how  they  should  most  highly  exalt  the 
claims  and  dignity  of  Christ.  If  they  have  called  him 
the  infinite  and  only  God,  it  has  been  to  make  his  place 
and  claim  paramount,  and  to  enhance  the  greatness  of  his 
redeeming  work.  If,  finding  too  little  evidence  for  this, 
they  have  regarded  him  as  a  preexistent  angelic  being,  a 
spirit  of  great  power  and  honor,  the  first  of  created 
beings,  the  agent  in  the  formation  of  the  world,  and  only 
inferior  to  God  himself,  it  has  been  from  a  shrinking 
dread  of  confounding  him  with  the  race  of  men.     And 


THE    DEITY    OF    CHRIST.  67 

if  they  have  held  to  his  pure  and  simple  humanity,  it 
has  generally  been  with  a  protest  first,  that  absolute 
freedom  from  moral  imperfection  set  him  apart  suffi- 
ciently from  other  men,  while  his  human  thought,  expe- 
rience, love,  brought  him  into  closer  sympathy  with  us 
than  if  he  had  been  of  another  order  of  beings,  and  gave 
him  a  more  genuine,  legitimate,  and  powerful  influence 
on  us,  as  our  exaniple. 

From  this  emulation  in  rendering  due  honor  to  the 
Saviour  —  so  creditable  in  general  to  the  loyalty  and 
religious  feeling  of  Christians  —  has  resulted  a  state  of 
mind  which  makes  it  very  difficult  to  deal  with  the  plain 
question  of  his  nature,  offices,  and  claims.  In  some 
respects  it  is  more  embarrassing  than  either  of  the  other 
doctrines.  If  we  speak  of  the  metaphysical  mystery  of 
the  Trinity,  of  the  confusion  of  ideas  involved  in  the 
doctrine  of  the  Atonement,  or  Fall  of  Man.  of  the  lior- 
rors  in  the  popular  notion  of  hell,  or  Satanic  agency, 
we  have  something  to  appeal  to  in  the  common  sentiment 
of  Christians.  But  when  we  touch  upon  the  Divinity  of 
Christ,  we  are  on  ground  appropriate  and  set  apart  to  the 
exclusive  sentiment  of  personal  reverence  ;  and  the  most 
delicate  and  cautious  handling  of  the  argument  will 
scarcely  shield  one  from  the  imputation  of  doing  wilful 
dishonor  to  the  Son  of  God,  and  wantonly  affronting  the 
religious  feeling  of  all  Christians. 

Still,  a  service  is  due  to  each  man's  understanding  of 
the  simple  truth.  And,  whatever  the  delicacy  and  skill 
required,  however  strongly  this  peculiar  difficulty  of  the 
task  may  press,  yet,  believing  that  insincerity  here  is 
worst  dishonor,  that  an  exaggerated  and  contradictory 
claim  is  most  adverse  to  the  simplicity  of  Christ,  and 
above  all,  that  our  whole  religious  belief  is  vitiated  and 


68  THE    DEITY    OF    CHRIST. 

confused  by  error  on  this  point,  or  any  other,  when  wil- 
fully and  timidly  adhered  to,  I  proceed  to  the  subject 
under  review.  The  Deity  of  Christ  is  intimately  and 
vitally  connected,  as  doctrine,  with  a  religious  system 
which  we  hold  to  be  false  and  injurious,  and  alien  from 
his  spirit.  This  must  be  our  justification  in  undertaking 
a  task  which  to  some  will  appear  a  studious  detraction 
from  the  dignity  of  Christ,  and  is  in  some  respects  alien 
and  distasteful  to  our  own  private  feeling.* 

First,  however,  let  me  make  even  more  explicitly  the 
disclaimer  which  I  urged  in  the  last  Discourse.  We 
leave  to  the  religious  sentiment  complete  and  undisputed 
possession  of  its  own  ground.  There  is  a  region  there 
with  which  we  have  no  disposition  to  interfere.  The 
devout  spirit,  the  experience  of  prayer,  has  a  sphere  and 
language  of  its  own,  inalienable.  On  that  ground  our 
criticism  and  logic  shall  not  tread.  What  the  grateful 
heart  recognizes,  in  its  simple,  strong  emotion,  shall  re- 
main untouched.  The  ascription  of  praise  and  homage, 
the  personal  sense  of  gratitude,  the  appeal,  the  love,  the 
veneration,  which  the  religious  mind  renders  in  unques- 
tioning sincerity  to  its  Saviour,  we  will  not  refuse  or 
blame. 

Neither  will  we  intrude  our  own  interpretation  of  that 
sentiment,  to  explain  away  this  or  change  the  meaning  of 
that.  A  part  of  the  homage  we  pay  to  Christ  has  be- 
come  thoroughly   blended   with  the   religious   sentiment 

*  Not  to  quarrel  about  terms,  I  shall  generally  use  the  words 
"Divinity"  and  "  Deity"  in  the  same  sense,  although  this  is  quite 
a  needless  concession,  and  one  which  many  Unitarians  would  pro- 
test against.  It  is  proper  to  add,  therefore,  that  these  generally 
insist  on  Christ's  Divinity^  as  belonging  to  his  commission  and  work, 
while  they  reject  his  Deity,  as  belonging  to  his  absolute  and  intrinsic 
nature. 


THE    DEITY    OF    CHRIST.  69 

and  character.  Its  appropriate  place  seems  to  be  in 
the  province  of  devotion.  We  have  no  wish  to  super- 
sede the  language  or  the  sentiment  which  has  become 
as  it  were  part  of  our  religious  nature,  —  at  least,  part 
of  our  culture  and  habit.  Only,  when  it  is  taken  from 
the  sphere  of  reverence  into  that  of  logic,  when  the 
emotion  is  stiffened  into  a  dogma,  and  the  breathed 
affection  becomes  petrified  in  a  creed,  when  the  warm 
declaration  of  devout  feeling  is  arrested  and  frozen  to  a 
solid  shape,  and  we  are  told  that  must  be  our  historical 
or  theological  opinion,  —  then  w^e  demur,  and  claim  our 
right  to  our  own  better  exposition,  as  we  think  it,  to 
serve  as  the  basis  of  the  same  faith  and  hope  and  love. 

For  the  sake  of  simplicity,  I  shall  confine  myself  at 
present  to  the  single  doctrine,  as  I  have  stated  it.  The 
diversity  of  opinion  is  so  great  among  those  who  dis- 
sent from  it,  and  the  shades  of  opinion  are  so  many  and 
so  nicely  discriminated,  between  the  high  Orthodox  be- 
lief and  the  other  extreme  of  rationalism,  that  it  would 
be  unfair  to  take  any  one  person's  statement  as  the 
alternative,  or  make  the  whole  various  body  responsible 
for  his  assertions.  Towards  the  close,  I  may  allude 
again  to  some  of  these  diversities,  for  further  illustra- 
tion. I  have  now  to  do  only  with  the  single  proposition, 
that  Christ  is  God.  Of  this  1  shall  attempt  to  show, 
first,  that  it  rests  on  the  wrong,  or  at  least  doubtful,  inter- 
pretation of  a  few  passages  of  Scripture,  while  it  is  op- 
posed by  its  general  sense  and  spirit  ;  and  next,  that,  in 
all  the  forms  in  which  it  has  been  held,  it  fails  of  the 
great  aim  of  religious  enlightenment,  while  it  is  unes- 
sential to  the  Christian  faith  or  hope.  Its  failure,  at  any 
rate,  to  meet  the  exigencies  of  the  theory  of  Atone- 
ment, will  be  considered  at  another  time. 


70  ^    THE    DEITY    OF    CHRIST. 

I.  It  will  save  confusion  and  misunderstanding,  if  I 
begin  witli  a  brief  view  of  the  Scripture  language  in 
reference  to  Christ.  It  is  not  to  be  concealed  or  denied, 
that  the  writers  of  the  New  Testament  speak  of  him  in 
very  peculiar  terras.  In  general,  —  and  from  this  an 
argument  has  been  derived  for  the  genuineness  of  these 
writings,  —  we  may  trace  a  marked  difference  in  the 
tone  and  style  from  the  first  period  to  the  last  of  the 
New  Testament  history.  In  the  Gospels,  our  Saviour 
is  scarcely  mentioned,  except  by  his  proper  name, 
Jesus.  If  we  omit  one  or  two  places  where  the  word 
Christ  refers  to  the  office  simply,  and  not  to  him  at 
all  in  person,  it  occurs  in  all  the  Gospels  put  together 
only  as  many  times  as  in  the  single  Epistle  to  the  Ro- 
mans, which  is  only  as  long  as  the  shortest  Gospel,  and 
is  occupied  with  a  different  class  of  subjects,  and  so 
has  less  occasion  to  mention  him.  And  in  every 
case,  without  any  straining  of  the  words,  "  Jesus  " 
may  mean  the  man,  and  ''  Christ  "  the  office  ;  while 
afterwards,  and  among  those  who  (as  Paul)  had  not 
known  him  personally,  the  word  Christ  tends  more  and- 
more  to  become  an  integral  part  of  his  proper  name. 
This  circumstance  will  appear  from  the  slightest  exam- 
ination of  the  Testament  or  of  a  Concordance. 

And  we  see,  in  general,  as  in  the  lapse  of  time  he 
was  more  and  more  viewed  in  relation  to  his  office,  and 
less  in  his  pure  and  simple  individuality,  that  epithets  of 
honor  came  to  be  more  commonly  added  to  his  name. 
The  title  "  Lord  "  *  occurs  first  in  the  book  of  Acts,  in 
direct  connection  with  his  name,  and  is  frequently  used 


*  The  vagueness  and  generality  of  "  lord  "  and  "  worship,"  as  the 
object  and  act  of  homage,  are  seen  in  Matthew  xviii.  26. 


THE    DEITY    OF    CHRIST.  71 

by  Paul.  And  all  the  characteristic  expressions  refer- 
ring to  him,  (such  as  "  in  Christ,"  "  for,"  "  against," 
((  by,"  "  withChrisl,")  in  connection  with  our  religious 
life  and  hopes,  occur  in  the  later  writings  of  the  Tes- 
tament. They  came  spontaneously  from  the  grateful 
and  religious  feeling  of  the  disciples,  which  seemed  to 
bring  them  most  near  to  him.  And  they  acquired  that 
vagueness,  spirituality,  and  elevation  which  make  them 
seem  applicable  to  God,  only  after  a  considerable  lapse 
of  time  had  intervened.  Indeed,  so  strikingly  is  this 
the  case,  that  it  occasioned  serious  difficulty  to  the  first 
Orthodox  interpreters  ;  and  some  of  them  found  no 
better  way  of  accounting  for  it,  than  to  say  it  was 
necessary  his  Divinity  should  be  concealed  while  he 
was  on  earth,  lest  it  should  come  to  the  knowledge  of 
his  subtle  and  malignant  enemy,  Satan,  and  work  harm 
to  the  truth.  The  doctrine,  as  they  supposed,  was 
studiously  hidden^  and  not  revealed.  It  was  only  an 
afterthought  that  Jesus  himself  had  plainly  declared  it 
to  his  disciples,  —  still  less,  in  the  words  of  our  existing 
Gospels. 

A  second  point  is  equally  evident,  and  equally  im- 
portant, as  throwing  light  on  the  New  Testament  phra- 
seology. It  is,  that  the  name  Christ  (which  came  by 
degrees,  as  we  have  seen,  to  be  his  ordinary  designa- 
tion) signifies  not  so  much  his  person  as  his  office,  —  or 
rather  the  peculiar  and  intimate  relation  in  which  he 
stood  towards  God.  The  word  Christ  (or  Messiah) 
means  "  anointed."  At  first,  and  among  the  Jews, 
it  meant  consecrated  to  the  particular  national  office  of 
the  Messiah  ;  but  by  degrees  a  sense  more  spiritual  and 
appropriate  came  to  be  attached  to  it,  which  we  may 
explain  somewhat  thus.      It  is,  indeed,  the  sentiment  of 


72  THE    DEITY    OF    CHRIST. 

all  spiritual  religion,  that  ''  in  God  we  live  and  move 
and  have  our  being."  But  most  men  are  conscious  of 
an  unwillingness  or  an  unworthiness,  which  separates  and 
estranges  them  from  him.  And  the  baptism  or  "anoint- 
ing "  of  the  Spirit,  (signified  in  the  name  Christ,)  seems 
to  imply  that  fulness  of  the  Divine  power  or  presence, 
that  immediate,  controlling,  pervading  influence  of  the 
Deity  upon  the  soul  of  Jesus,  which  made  him,  in  the 
reverent  affection  of  his  followers,  wholly  apart  from 
and  above  the  ordinary  race  of  men,  —  the  special 
representative,  so  to  speak,  of  our  religious  nature  and 
capacity,  —  the  mediator  between  God  and  men,  — 
the  image  or  representation  of  the  glory  of  the  Divine 
attributes,  especially  of  mercy,  justice,  and  love,  —  in 
a  new  and  peculiar  sense  the  Son  of  God.  All,  says 
Schleiermacher,  are  children  of  God,  —  Jesus  only, 
his  Son.  Such  vi^as  evidently  the  feeling  the  early 
Christians  entertained  towards  Jesus  Christ  ;  and  they 
expressed  it  in  a  variety  of  ways,  with  as  much 
strength  and  fervor  as  they  could,  in  those  many 
phrases  which  have  come  to  be  so  closely  associated 
with  his  name. 

Nor  in  this,  as  I  conceive,  were  they  departing  from 
the  idea  of  his  simple  and  proper  humanity.  There  is 
no  break,  no  abrupt  change,  no  sudden  transition,  from 
their  first  thought  of  him,  as  the  carpenter's  son  of 
JNIazareth,  to  their  strong  and  emulous  ascriptions  of 
all  possible  dignity  and  glory  to  their  risen  Lord,  — 
nothing  but  the  gradual  progress  of  their  thought,  as 
just  described,  as  he  became  more  and  more  blended 
with  their  religious  ex])erience  and  hope.  And,  at  any 
rate,  whatever  was  the  nature  of  that  relationship  to 
God  which  they  ascribed  to  him,  it  was  what  it  were 


THE    DEITY    OF    CHRIST.  73 

no  impiety  in  ihein  to  aspire  for,  themselves.  There 
might,  indeed,  be  a  peculiarity  in  position,  which  made 
him  what  no  other  could  be  to  the  world  and  them  ; 
but  those  spiritual  gifts  which  w^ere  "  the  hiding  of 
his  power,"  it  was  their  privilege  and  their  duty  to 
seek.  Thus  Jesus  himself  is  represented  (John  xvii. 
22)  as  saying,  "  The  glory  which  thou  gavest  me  1  have 
given  ihem"  ;  i.  e.  the  intimate  sense  and  blessedness  of 
the  Divine  presence.  As  he  says,  "  I  and  my  Father 
are  one,"  so  he  prays  "  that  they  all  may  be  one,  as 
thou,  Father,  art  in  me,  and  I  in  thee,  that  they  also 
may  be  one  in  us."  Peter  (1  Pet.  iv.  J 4)  encourages 
the  disciples  in  persecution,  by  assuring  them  that  "  the 
spirit  of  glory  and  of  God  resteth  on  them,"  as  on 
Jesus  at  his  baptism  ;  and  John  (1  Ep.  i.  3),  says, 
"Our  fellowship  is  with  the  Father";  and  again  (iii.  2), 
"  When  he  shall  appear,  we  shall  be  like  him,  for  we 
shall  see  him  as  he  is  "  ;  and  again  (ii.  20),  "  Ye  have 
an  unction  [anointing]  from  the  Holy  One,  and  ye  know 
all  things."  Paul  desires  (Eph.  iii.  19)  that  the  disci- 
ples "  might  be  filled  with  all  the  fulness  of  God  "  ; 
and  Peter  (2  Pet.  i.  4)  says  the  Gospel  promises  are 
given,  "  that  by  these  ye  might  be  partakers  of  the  Di- 
vine nature," —  thus  applying  to  the  disciples  generally 
almost  the  very  phraseology  which  Orthodoxy  applies  to 
Christ,  and  using  in  this  connection  the  strongest  ex- 
pressions that  can  be  quoted  to  prove  his  absolute 
Divinity. 

One  other  expression  has  given  peculiar  difficulty  to 
interpreters,  but  seems  easily  explained,  as  containing  a 
slight  modification  of  the  same  idea.  It  is  the  title  Lo- 
gos, or  Word,  as  used  in  the  first  chapter  of  John.  I 
cannot  go  into  an  exposition  now  of  the  style  of  philos- 
7 


74  THE    DEITY    OF    CHRIST. 

ophy  which  made  these  expressions  easy  and  familiar 
once,  obscure  as  they  may  be  now.  Nor  is  this  at  all 
necessary.  Though  the  expression  be  a  technical  one, 
the  thing  expressed  is  a  simple  religious  sentiment  or 
idea.  It  is  enough  to  say,  that  this  form  of  speech  was 
naturalized  among'  the  Jews  in  Egypt  about  the  time  of 
Christ  ;  and  that  the  introduction  to  John's  Gospel  (we 
are  told)  can  be  matched  word  for  word,  except  where 
Jesus  is  personally  spoken  of,  out  of  the  writings  of 
these  Jews.  As  we  shall  see  by  careful  attention, 
every  other  explanation  is  confused  and  obscure,  except 
that  which  makes  the  "  Word  "  signify  simply  the  ac- 
tive spirit  or  energy  of  God  ;  or  rather,  the  utterance  or 
expression  of  God  in  his  works,  and  especially  in  the 
soul  of  man.  The  phrase  occurs  more  than  sixty  times 
in  the  Old  Testament,  often  with  a  kindred  meaning ;  as 
in  this  passage,  —  "  By  the  word  of  the  Lord  were  the 
heavens  made,  and  all  the  host  of  them  by  the  breath  of 
his  mouth  "  ;  besides  (a  similar  idea)  where  it  is  said, 
"God  spake,  and  it  was  done,"  &c.  Its  significa- 
tion is  almost  identical  with  our  word  "  inspiration," 
taken  in  the  broadest  sense  ;  and  it  may  be  regarded  as 
a  refined,  less  niaterial  way  of  speaking  of  the  acts  of 
God. 

And  if  we  understand  it  simply  of  the  Divine  spirit, 
energy,  reason,  or  creative  word,  we  shall  find  its  mean- 
irig  clear  and  plain  enough.  It  is  that  Divine  power  or 
wisdom,  manifest  in  the  works  of  creation,  and  in  the 
soul  of  man.  And  because  that  Divine  spirit  was  es- 
pecially manifest  in  the  life  of  Jesus,  and  this  was  felt 
to  be,  in  a  special  sense,  a  moral  revelation  of  God, 
therefore  this  phrase  is  used  to  introduce  fitly  the  story 
of  bis  hfe,  and  prepare  us  to  understand  his  marvellous 


THE    DEITY    OF    CHRIST.  75 

influence  on  all  who  knew  him.  So  far  as  there  is  a 
consecutive  train  of  thought  in  the  passage,  it  seems  to 
be,  that  God  has  made  a  threefold  revelation  or  expres- 
sion of  himself;  namely,  of  his  power  (in  nature),' his 
wisdom  (in  the  soul),  and  his  love  (in  Christ)  ;  or,  as 
we  should  say,  by  his  providence  in  nature,  in  history, 
and  in  the  life  of  Jesus.  A  moral  revelation  could  only 
have  been  made  in  such  a  life  ;  which  accordingly  stands 
to  us  as  the  representative  or  declaration  of  precisely 
those  attributes  which  seem  least  clearly  revealed  in  the 
other  manifestations  of  the  Infinite.  After  speaking  of 
the  great  w^ork  of  creation,  done  by  the  wisdom,  energy, 
or  creative  word  of  God,  —  the  Almighty  himself,  and 
no  inferior  being,  for  ''  the  Word  was  God," — and  al- 
luding to  its  manifestation  in  the  soul  of  man,  and  his 
spiritual  or  providential  history,  the  writer  goes  on  to 
say,  —  "  The  Word  was  made  flesh,  and  dwelt  among 
us,  (and  we  beheld  his  glory,  the  glory  as  of  the  only 
begotten  of  the  Father,)  full  of  grace  and  truth."  To 
one  who  enters  at  all  into  the  spirit  of  that  Gospel,  or 
understands,  however  faintly,  the  sentiment  of  affection- 
ate veneration  the  disciples  felt  towards  Jesus,  —  who 
first  had  opened  their  eyes  to  the  glory  of  God's  creation, 
and  made  them  aware  of  their  spiritual  destiny  and  the 
abiding  presence  of  God,  —  there  will  seem  no  difficulty 
in  such  words  as  these. 

After  this  exposition  of  the  general  tone  and  spirit  of 
the  New  Testament  language  in  respect  to  Christ,  there 
will  be  little  difficulty,  I  apprehend,  in  the  few  pas- 
sages that  have  not  already  been  considered.  I  men- 
tion them  more  to  show  their  scanty  number,  and  the 
slenderness  of  evidence  for  any  thing  more  than  has 
already  been  shown  respecting  the  honors  paid  to  Christ 


76  THE    DEITY    OF    CHRIST. 

in  the  Testament,  than  for  any  weight  they  have  In  sway- 
ing our  opinion. 

In  the  Hebrew  Scriptures  there  are  two  passages 
which  have  an  accidental  connection  with  this  argument. 
1.  Isaiah  vii.  14,  where  the  name  "  Immanuel "  Is 
applied  to  the  expected  Jewish  prince,  or  some  other 
child,  meaning  "God  with  us,"  —  as  Elijah  signifies 
"  God  the  Lord,"  and  Israel  "  Prince  of  God,"  and 
Timothy  "  Glory  of  God."  There  is  nothing  in  the 
passage  to  make  us  suspect  its  referring  to  Christ,  ex- 
cepting that  it  is  gratefully  quoted  by  Matthew,  to  illus- 
trate the  new  deliverance  through  Jesus.  2.  Isaiah  ix. 
6,  —  "  His  name  shall  be  called  Wonderful,  Counsellor, 
the  Mighty  God,  the  Everlasting  Father."  Of  course 
this  could  not  mean  Jesus,  —  for  the  name  given  Is  the 
Father,  not  the  Son,  and  the  best  critics  are  agreed  in 
applying  these  titles  of  honor  to  the  triumphant  reign  of 
the  pious  and  prosperous  Hezeklah  ;  and  It  was  not  till 
comparatively  late,  that  it  was  even  suggested  that  they 
might  be  said  of  Christ.  It  is  plain  to  see,  by  the  con- 
nection, that  they  were  spoken  of  a  temporal  and  warlike 
prince,  not  of  a  spiritual  teacher* 

In  seven  places  of  the  New  Testament,  and  only 
seven,  the  name  God  has  been  asserted  to  be  given  to 
Jesus.  Of  these,  two  are  set  aside  by  the  critics  as 
not  belonging  to  the  true  text,  viz.  : — I.  Acts  xx. 
28,  ''  The  church  of  God,  which  he  hath  purchased 
with  his  own  blood."  It  should  be,  "  church  of  the 
Lord,"  or  "  master."  The  phrase  "  blood  of  God  "  is 
abhorrent  to  Christian  feeling,  and  was  not  used  till  the 
ninth  century,  the  darkest  of  the  Dark  Ages.  2.  1  Tim. 
ili.  16,  ''  God  was  manifest  in  the  flesh,"  —  a  phrase 
easily  explained  by  what  I  have  just  said  of  the  Word, 


THE    DEITY    OF    CHRIST.  77 

as  the  declaration  or  manifestation  of  God  ;  but  the  true 
text  is  "  he  who,"  or  "  which." 

Three  others  depend  on  grammar  and  punctuation, 
and  are  as  easily  rendered  one  way  as  the  other.  These 
are, —  1.  Rom.  ix.  5,  which  can  be  rendered  several 
ways  ;  perhaps  the  simplest  is,  "  Christ  came,  who  is 
above  them  all  ;  God  be  blessed  for  ever  "  ;  or,  "  God 
who  is  over  all  be  blessed  for  ever."  2.  Heb.  i.  8, 
which  is  quoted  literally  from  the  Greek  Alexandrian 
translation  of  the  Old  Testament  (Psalm  xlv.  6),  and 
which  the  best  Hebrew  scholar  in  the  world  translates, 
"  Thy  throne  is  of  God  for  ever,"  i.  e.  established  by 
God.  It  was  first  addressed  to  Solomon,  on  his  mar- 
riage with  the  princess  of  Egypt.  3.'  1  John  v.  20, 
"  This  is  the  true  God,  and  eternal  life,"  —  which  may 
or  may  not  refer  to  Christ,  just  as  we  choose,  not 
even  being  in  the  same  sentence  where  his  name  is  men- 
tioned. 

Our  seven  texts,  then,  are  reduced  to  two,  —  abso- 
lutely the  only  ones  wnth  which  Unitarians  find  any  dif- 
ficulty ;  and  that  difficulty  is  only  as  to  the  frame  of 
mind  in  which  they  were  said  or  written.  1.  John  xx. 
28,  where  Thomas,  in  his  excitement  and  surprise  at 
recognizing  Jesus,  says,  "  My  Lord  and  my  God,"  — 
as  if  a  man  in  that  state  of  mind,  who  the  minute  be- 
fore had  declared  his  entire  unbelief  of  Jesus'  resurrec- 
tion, could  be  the  chief  witness  to  the  most  momentous 
truth  of  the  Gospel  !  Some  suppose  it  is  an  ejaculation 
addressed  to  God,  as  if  calling  him  to  w^itness  his  new 
faith  ;  others  that  the  word  is  addressed  to  Jesus  in  the 
qualified  sense  in  which  it  is  used  in  my  text,  "  He  called 
them  gods  unto  whom  the  word  of  God  came."  Either 
way,  it  is  of  too  trifling  value  as  evidence  to  create  a 
7* 


78  THE    DEITY    OF    CHRIST. 

doubt  or  justify  a  controversy.  2.  Last  of  all,  and  cer- 
tainly most  difficult,  if  we  wish  to  know  the  precise 
shade  of  meaning  implied,  is  the  passage  (Phil.  ii.  6) 
which  says  of  Jesus,  that,  "being  in  the  form  of  God, 
he  thought  it  not  robbery  to  be  equal  with  God."  It  is 
in  the  course  of  an  exhortation  to  Christian  humility. 
We  are  to  be  like  Christ  in  this  respect.  What !  in  as- 
piring to  absolute  equality  with  God  .''  Certainly  not  ; 
but  just  the  opposite,  — for  the  word  itself  means  just 
as  well,  that  he  "  did  not  make  it  his  ambition  "  to  be 
equal  with  God,  — i.  e.  to  claim  divine  honor,  such  as 
was  given  to  Greek  heroes  and  Roman  emperors.  Paul 
was  writing  to  Greeks  under  the  Roman  rule  ;  and  it  is 
thus  that  he  contrasts  the  impious  ambition  of  their  pre- 
tended gods  and  heroes  with  the  simple  majesty  of  Jesus, 
who,  "godlike  "as  he  was,  ("in  the  form  of  God,") 
never  aspired  to  that  sort  of  worship  from  his  followers 
which  their  superstitious  devotees  claimed  for  them. 

These  are  all  the  passages  ever  supposed  to  name 
Christ  as  God.  Of  the  expressions,  "  Lord,"  "  wor- 
ship," "fulness  of  God"  in  him,  I  have  spoken  already. 
If  he  says,  "  He  that  hath  seen  me  hath  seen  the  Fa- 
ther," on  the  Trinitarian  interpretation  it  would  cer- 
tainly be  to  "  confound  the  persons,"  and  make  no  dif- 
ference between  Father  and  Son.  He  evidently  means, 
that  in  the  human  qualities  of  dignity,  mercy,  love,  we 
see  all  we  can  see  of  God,  and  have  only  to  add  the 
infinity  of  the  Divine  nature  to  the  beauty  of  the  spirit- 
ual traits.  The  only  other  passage  of  any  moment  is 
that  (Col.  i.  16)  where  it  is  twice  said,  "  All  things 
were  created  by  him."  The  prepositions  used  are  com- 
monly translated  "  in  "  and  "  through,"  —  which  would 
materially  alter  the  sense  ;   but  I  am  inclined  to  think 


THE    DEITY    OF    CHRIST.  79 

the  whole  paragraph  is  a  parallel,  and  that  the  sense  is, 
"  Christ  Is  like  God  in  this  ;  that  as  in  him  (God)  are 
established  the  glory  and  strength  of  the  outward  world, 
so  in  him  (Christ),  the  head  of  the  Church,  are  found 
the  source  of  spiritual  authority  and  the  fountain-head  of 
religious  truth." 

I  have  taken  up  these  "  proof-texts,"  as  they  are 
called,  one  by  one,  to  show  in  detail  what  I  asserted  in 
general,  —  that  the  doctrine  of  the  Deity  of  Christ 
rests  on  a  false,  or  at  least  doubtful,  interpretation  of  a 
very  few  passages,  and  is  opposed  by  the  general  sense 
and  spirit  of  the  Testament.  Not  that  these  critical  dis- 
cussions have  any  weight  in  influencing  my  own  belief; 
but  they  are  necessary  to  avoid  misunderstanding,  and 
to  interpret  special  points  into  conformity  with  the  whole. 
Nor  that  I  contend  for  the  precise  expositions  I  have 
given  them ;  of  course,  our  particular  interpretation  is 
shaped  by  our  general  belief,  and  not  the  reverse.  Critics 
equally  learned  and  candid  will  read  such  things  difTer- 
enlly.  If  the  Deity  of  Christ  could  be  proved  on  other 
grounds,  doubtless  these  passages  might  be  so  explained 
as  to  accord  with  it.  But  this  is  the  very  thing  which 
cannot  be  proved.  But  I  do  not  see  how  any  one  can 
doubt  that  the  sense  and  spirit  of  the  Testament  ^enemZ/j/ 
make  Jesus  wholly  different  from  God.  There  seems 
(saving  the  few  doubtful  sentences)  no  confusion,  no 
room  for  varying  opinion.  And,  indeed,  the  only  real 
reluctance  to  regarding  Christ  as  a  "  mere  man  "  (as  is 
sometimes  depreciatingly  said)  comes,  I  think,  from  the 
morbid  and  false  view  of  human  nature  studiously  fos- 
tered by  the  prevalent  theory  of  Christianity.  This  I 
shall  have  occasion  to  review  presently  ;  at  present,  it  is 
enough  to  allude  to  the  simple  fact. 

Take  the  attributes  we  ascribe  to  God,  and  see  how 


80  THE    D£ITY    OF    CHRIST. 

the  life  of  Christ  expressly  contradicts  them.     Eternity,  « 

or  necessary  existence  :  he  "  came  forth  from  the  Fa-  I 
ther."  Omnipresence:  he '' goes  his  way  to  him  that  ^ 
sent  him."  Omnipotence  :  he  says,  "  Power  is  given 
me  ";  "  Of  myself  I  can  do  nothing";  "  My  Father  is 
greater  than  I."  Omniscience  :  "Of  that  day  knoweth 
not  the  Son,  but  the  Father  only."  Absolute  perfection  : 
"  But  one  is  good,  that  is  God."  Self-sufficiency  :  he 
prays,  acknowledges  his  dependence,  and  says,  "  I  thank 
thee  that  thou  hast  heard  me."  These  examples  are 
enough.  I  quote  them,  not  for  proof,  but  merely  as 
specimens  of  the  Gospel  style.  They  show,  as  plainly 
as  can  be  shown,  that  the  general  sense  of  Scripture  is 
utterly  hostile  to  the  Orthodox  theory  ;  and  that,  without 
attributing  strange  dissimulation  and  ambiguity  to  the 
"  Son  of  Man,"  as  he  almost  always  called  himself,  it  is 
impossible  to  think  of  him  as  being  at  the  same  time  the 
Infinite  God,  absolute  in  knowledge  and  supreme  in 
power. 

The  verbal  jugglery  by  which  we  are  told  of  two 
natures  in  him,  a  Divine  and  a  human,  —  if  it  means  any 
thing  more  than  that  the  Divine  spirit  interpenetrates 
and  is  the  sustaining  life  of  every  human  soul,  —  has  no 
countenance  and  can  find  no  excuse  in  the  Testament. 
Make  Jesus  in  a  peculiar  sense  the  representative  to  us 
of  that  divine  or  spiritual  element  common  to  us  all  in 
less  degree,  and  you  make  his  claims  intelligible,  the 
language  of  Scripture  plain.  Go  beyond,  though  but  a 
step,  and  you  bring  darkness  and  confusion,  destroy  the 
simplicity  of  the  word,  and  perplex  yourself  with  a  vaiji 
and  complicated  theory,  for  which  there  is  no  justification 
in  reason,  Scripture,  or  the  religious  sense.* 

*  I  omit  the  argument  respecting  the  preexistence  of  Christ.    1.  Be- 


THE    DEITY    OF    CHRIST.  81 

II.  Thus  defective  and  doubtful  as  the  evidence  is,  at 
best,  which  by  means  of  Scriptural  assertion  or  interpre- 
tation makes  Jesus  identical  with  God,  the  doctrine  has 
yet  been  supposed  to  be  borne  out  by  other  proofs,  and 
justified  on  other  grounds,  independent  of  these.  Of 
course,  no  other  mode  of  direct  proof  is  legitimate  except 
the  Scripture  testimony.  But  it  has  been  assumed  to 
meet  a  great  want  of  our  minds,  which  otherwise  could 
have  no  sure  knowledge  of  God,  and  of  our  hearts, 
which  could  have  no  sure  avenue  of  approach  to  him 
but  through  this  medium.  I  have,  then,  to  show  that 
this  assertion  is  incorrect  ;  that  mind  and  heart  do  not 
require  such  a  doctrine  of  the  Saviour  ;  or,  in  the  words 
of  the  proposition  before  stated,  that  it  "  fails  of  the 
great  aim  of  religious  enlightenment,  while  it  is  unessen- 
tial to  the  Christian  faith  or  hope." 

The  doctrine  of  Christ's  Divinity,  while  it  certainly 
bewilders  and  perplexes  the  mind,  affords  us  no  more 
certain  knowledge  of  God.  It  is  an  error  to  suppose, 
that,  by  bestowing  the  name  of  what  is  unknown  on  a 
familiar  object,  we  become  better  acquainted  with  its  real 
character.  To  call  charcoal  diamond  may  be  said  to 
have  some  degree  of  scientific  truth  ;  but,  familiar  as  the 
one  may  be,  it  will  not  help  explain  the  properties  of 
the  other,  unless  we  know  that  too.  No  one,  surely,  will 
deny  that  Jesus  lived  and  was  known  among  his  contem- 

cause  it  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  question  of  his  Divinity,  and 
Unitarians  are  of  various  minds  about  it.  2.  The  three  or  four 
passages  which  seem  to  imply  it  are  no  more  explicit  than  those 
which  speak  of  men  as  "  known,"  "  glorified,"  "  favored,"  «S:c.,  be- 
fore their  birth  (Jer.  i.  5;  Rom.  viii.  30;  2  Tim.  i.  8,  9).  3.  Because 
the  general  speculative  notion  of  the  preexistence  of  souls  would 
naturally,  if  shared  by  John,  be  applied  peculiarly  to  his  supposed 
sinless  and  glorified  precixistent  state. 


82  THE    DEITY    OF    CHRIST. 

poraries  as  a  man.  As  such  he  was  loved,  welcomed, 
followed,  entreated  ;  as  such  he  was  arrested,  tried,  ac- 
cused, and  put  to  death  ;  and  even  his  nearest  friends 
were  so  far  from  suspecting  a  superior  nature  in  him, 
that  on  his  death  they  fell  into  complete  despair,  as  if 
his  project  of  restoring  "  the  kingdom  of  Israel"  had 
wholly  failed.  Evidently,  then,  during  his  ministry  he 
had  displayed  only  the  qualities,  attributes,  characteristics, 
of  a  man.  It  was  only  human  traits,  such  as  benevo- 
lence, justice,  moral  courage,  devoutness,  that  he  exhib- 
ited, however  set  off  and  exalted  by  superiority  of  char- 
acter or  inarvellousness  of  works.  Where,  then,  do  we 
find  any  relief  to  our  perplexity,  or  light  to  our  doubts  of 
God,  by  being  told  that  his  nature  was  mysteriously  pres- 
ent in  that  soul  ?  If  this  signifies  that  the  benevolence, 
justice,  moral  purity,  spirituality,  of  the  Divine  character 
are  akin  to  such  qualities  in  the  human  soul,  and  that  in 
this  way  Jesus,  most  pure  and  exalted  of  mankind,  was 
*'  the  brightness  of  the  Father's  glory,  and  the  express 
image  of  his  person,"  what  is  it  but  to  make  more 
vivid  our  sense  of  the  Divine  attributes  by  a  process  of 
mind  perfectly  understood  before,  only  better  illustrated 
and  further  carried  out  .''  Or  what  is  it,  again,  but  to 
acknowledge  ourselves  unable,  as  indeed  we  are,  to  con- 
ceive of  God  otherwise,  excepting  from  what  is  most 
pure  and  perfect  in  man  ?  Of  course,  it  must  always  be 
so.  We  cannot  go  beyond  the  region  of  our  experience. 
We  must  take  what  we  know  as  the  hint,  and  project 
from  that  our  idea  of  what  we  do  not  know.  And  just  so 
far  as  Jesus  displays  to  us  new  traits  of  excellence,  or 
makes  us  conscious  of  new  germs  of  spiritual  life  in  our- 
selves, just  so  far  he  brings  us  to  a  better  knowledge  of 
God.  This  is  a  truth  of  reason  and  experience,  —  one 
peculiarly  illustrated  in  him. 


THE    DEITY    OF    CHRIST.  83 

But  if  we  go  any  farther,  we  confuse  ourselves  by 
words  without  a  meaning.  The  germ,  the  hint,  the 
suggestion  of  a  better  moral  knowledge  of  God,  we  find 
in  the  life  of  Jesus.  But  as  a  matter  of  definition,  of 
accurate  scientific  knowledge,  we  are  as  much  to  seek  as 
ever.  Every  definition  we  can  frame,  every  phrase  we 
use,  every  conception  we  entertain  of  God  as  distinct 
from  man,  gives  us  equally  God  as  distinct  from  the  Jesus 
of  the  Gospels.  I  say  this  not  hastily  or  irreverently,  or 
in  any  want  of  honor  towards  the  Son  of  God.  Every 
person  claiming  to  be  a  Christian  gives  Jesus  precisely 
the  honor  he  understands  him  to  claim.  I  am  simply 
stating  a  contradiction  which  occurs  necessarily  in  every 
(however  Orthodox)  representation  of  Christ.  Every 
form  of  words  is  used  by  which  implicitly  or  explicitly  he 
can  be  distinguished  from  the  Infinite  God.  Except  for 
a  few  express  assertions  now  and  then  to  the  contrary, 
not  a  sermon  or  hymn  or  prayer  but  implies  the  diff'er- 
ence  and  inferiority  of  Christ  in  respect  to  God.  Nine 
tenths  of  every  Christian  service  are  strictly  Unitarian  ; 
only  in  the  other  tenth  is  the  Trinitarian  reservation 
made.  And  if  this  difficulty  is  evaded  by  saying  that  he 
was  the  human  image  of  God,  a  finite  representation  of 
the  infinite,  the  evasion  is  simply  a  contradiction  in  terms  ; 
for  infinity  is  the  very  distinctive  essence  and  character- 
istic of  the  Divine  in  itself,  the  only  way  you  can  repre- 
sent it  as  differing  from  the  human.  The  hypothesis  of 
a  double  nature  is  an  awkward  and  groundless  fabrica- 
tion, except  as  signifying  the  blending  of  the  Divine  and 
human  element  in  every  soul.  For  we  are  all  children 
of  God,  as  well  as  children  of  the  earth,  and  share  the 
very  immortality  and  spiritual  essence  of  our  Heavenly 
Father,  as  well  as  the  corruption  of  mortal  flesh. 


84  THE    DEITY    OF    CHRIST. 

And  the  other  hypothesis,  that  the  Divine  Spirit  took 
the  place  in  him  of  a  human  soul,  is  no  more  satisfactory. 
If  it  means  that  his  will,  affection,  thought,  were  abso- 
lutely and  personally  identical  with  those  of  God,  —  that 
he  had  no  individuality  as  a  man,  and  no  human  affec- 
tion other  than  the  love  the  Infinite  feels  for  all  his  off- 
spring, —  that  the  volition  which  prompted  a  word  of 
sympathy  or  rebuke,  at  the  very  same  moment  and  in 
the  sphere  of  the  same  consciousness,  was  controlling 
the  movements  of  the  stars  and  the  great  course  of 
Providence,  —  then,  for  so  stupendous  an  assumption,  a 
very  different  warrant  from  any  we  can  find  is  needed, 
and  a  degree  of  evidence  from  the  nature  of  the  case 
unattainable.  Any  thing  less  than  this  is  either  the  most 
unintelligible  mysticism,  —  that  doctrine  which  merges 
all  human  thought  and  will  in  the  universal  Deity,  and  so 
again  confounds  God,  Christ,  and  man  too  in  one  vague 
identity,  —  or  else  is  simply  the  doctrine  which  I  have 
partly  illustrated  before,  of  the  Divine  presence  in  the 
human  soul.  Even  if  I  went  so  far  as  to  allow  that  the 
New  Testament  writers,  or  the  early  Christians,  illus- 
trated their  idea  of  Christ  as  the  image  of  God  by  the 
familiar  Oriental  idea  of  an  incarnation  of  the  Deity, 
(such  as  we  find  in  all  accounts  of  the  Hindoo  mythol- 
ogy,) still  I  should  hold  that  their  real  sense  and  mean- 
ing was  simply  as  I  have  already  explained,  when  speak- 
ing of  the  baptism  or  anointing  of  the  Spirit,  and  the 
spiritual  presence  of  God  in  every  faithful  soul. 

And  finally,  I  maintain  that  such  a  view  is  all  that  is 
essential  to  our  religious  faith  or  hope.  After  all,  the 
doctrine  of  Christ's  Divinity  has  its  strongest  hold  in  the 
devout  heart,  and  as  being  supposed  to  meet  a  peculiar 
religious  want.     And,  in  a  certain  modified  sense,  this  is 


THE    DEITY    OF    CHRIST.  85 

SO  far  from  being  denied,  that  it  is  expressly  asserted 
and  vindicated  in  the  whole  course  of  my  argument. 
The  real  want  is,  to  be  assured  of  God's  presence  and 
aid  to  ourselves.  In  the  dark  era  of  superstition  and 
distress,  near  a  thousand  years  after  the  birth  of  Christ, 
when  the  earth  seemed  desolate  and  forsaken,  as  if  God 
had  abandoned  it  utterly  to  confusion  and  crime,  —  then 
it  was  a  relief,  a  point  of  joyful,  enthusiastic  faith,  to 
be  assured  of  the  "real  presence"  in  the  sacramental 
host.  God,  it  was  reverently  believed,  was  bodily 
seen,  felt,  handled,  tasted,  in  the  bread  and  cup  of  com- 
munion. This  was  the  sign  men  craved  and  welcomed 
then,  of  his  abiding  presence,  —  their  proof  that  he  had 
not  deserted  his  children.  And  then  it  was  that  Christ 
was  most  closely  identified  with  God,  in  terms  that 
would  seem  shocking  and  blasphemous  to  us  now, 
though  then  the  utterance  of  sincere  religious  affection 
and  faith.  The  great  truth  that  God  never  deserts  us, 
that  he  is  still  with  us,  though  we  see  and  know  him 
not,  could  be  expressed  tlien  in  such  symbols  only  as 
appealed  to  men's  grosser  senses,  and  in  terms  of  which 
the  paradox  best  stated  the  amazing  and  incredible  truth. 
From  a  similar  feeling,  men  have  clung  to  a  belief  in 
the  Deity  of  Christ,  lest  otherwise  they  should  seem  to 
lose  their  hold  on  God,  —  who  was  thus  brought  com- 
paratively near,  and  into  the  compass  of  their  affection- 
ate thought.  But  the  simpler  statement  of  his  Divine 
nature,  in  that  sense  in  which  we  can  be  partly  con- 
scious of  the  same  in  us  in  our  better  moods  of  mind, 
not  only  is  quite  as  near  (as  I  think  far  nearer)  the 
Testament  phraseology,  but  it  does  not  perplex  or  con- 
front our  reason  ;  it  does  not  bewilder  our  mind  ;  it 
does  not  repel  by  a  dogma,  when  it  should  cheer  and 
8 


86  THE    DEITY    OF    CHRIST. 

comfort  by  an  element  of  falih  and  love.  Do  you  say 
it  is  a  degradation  to  the  pure  and  exalted  soul  of  Jesus 
to  bring  him  thus  within  the  range  of  our  personal  sym- 
pathy, into  the  circle  of  our  human  brotherhood  ?  Ask 
yourself,  first,  whether  your  own  view  of  humanity, 
of  man  the  child  of  God,  made  in  the  image  of  God, 
has  not  been  degraded  and  profaned  ;  whether  the 
knowledge  of  man's  guilt  has  not  clouded  your  mind 
with  despair  for  man  ;  whether  it  is  not  your  distrust  in 
the  promise  of  God  for  ali,  your  unbelief  in  the  Divine 
influence  and  presence  with  all,  that  makes  you  un- 
willing to  acknowledge  Christ  as  perfectly  and  simply 
a  brother-man.  Renew  your  hope  ;  revive  your  faith 
in  God's  universal  providence  ;  and  you  will  no  longer 
think  it  strange  and  a  profanation  to  represent  Christ 
as  the  Son  of  Man.  The  profanation  will  rather  be 
in  the  unwillingness  to  speak  of  man  as  the  Son  of  God. 
The  Divine  presence  in  nature  and  the  soul,  —  the 
countenance  of  love  and  pity  with  which  God  looks  on 
us,  —  the  merciful  dealing  of  Providence  towards  us,  — 
the  devout  rapture  that  assures  us  we  are  not  forgotten 
or  despised  of  Him  without  whom  not  a  sparrow  falls  to 
the  ground,  —  these  will  be  the  object  of  your  thought. 
The  religious  want  will  be  amply  met  and  satisfied,  ac- 
cording as  you  cherish  such  a  sentiment  as  this.  And 
then  it  will  seem  the  most  natural  and  beautiful  thing  in 
the  world,  that  he  who  for  long  ages  has  stood  foremost 
in  men's  thought  as  the  most  perfect  representative  of 
the  Divinity,  who  has  not  only  been  honored  as  the  Son 
of  God,  but  worshipped  in  afiectionate  faith  as  the  In- 
finite One  himself,  — that  he  should  be  regarded  as  dif- 
fering from  us,  not  in  kind,  but  in  degree  ;  as  a  brother- 
man,  whose  faith  was  so  lofty  and  serene,  whose  thought 


THE    DEITY    OF    CHRIST.  87 

SO  clear,  whose  mind  so  free  of  evil  stain,  that  he  stood, 
as  it  were,  within  the  very  border  of  the  spiritual  world, 
and  nothing  was  betw^een  his  soul  and  God. 

As  the  very  Infinite,  his  words  can  have  no  sincere 
meaning,  — his  suffering  must  be  unreal,  — his  tempta- 
tion a  dramatic  show,  —  his  prayers  an  insincerity,  — 
his  sorrowing  affection  an  assumed  disguise, — his  ex- 
ample of  no  application  to  our  mortal  state.  x\nalyze 
your  own  thought  of  him,  and  you  will  find  it  resolves 
itself  very  much  into  what  I  have  said.  Whether  Or- 
thodox or  Unitarian,  —  adhering  to  a  form  of  words  as- 
serting his  Divinity,  or  trusting  to  your  general  regard 
for  him,  and  sense  of  what  the  Scriptures  teach,  —  in 
point  of  fact,  the  sentiment  of  all  involves  the  same  fun- 
damental view.  A  hundred  differences  there  may  be  in 
points  of  criticism,  in  particular  opinions  here  and  there  ; 
but  the  legitimate,  true,  and  only  sense  in  which  it  is 
possible  to  conceive  of  Jesus  as  the  Son  of  God  is 
as  representative  of  the  spiritual  faculty  in  ourselves, 
and  as  exalting  our  own  nature  by  a  nearer  moral  like- 
ness to  our  Father. 

Forced  and  strained  beyond  this  simple  truth,  the 
doctrine  is  one  reposing  on  insufficient  evidence,  and  in 
the  highest  degree  confounding  to  our  reason.  He  is 
taken  from  the  sphere  of  our  sympathy,  and  put  in  a 
position  merely  official  towards  us.  An  arbitrary  and 
artificial  array  of  "  offices  '^  is  assigned  him,  in  place 
of  the  free,  natural,  spontaneous  exercise  of  spiritual 
power  by  a  gloriously  endowed  and  sincerely  faithful 
soul.  The  charge  of  assuming  such  a  character  he  re- 
pels as  explicitly  as  possible,  in  the  w^ords  which  best 
express  his  true  spiritual  relation  toman  and  God:  — 
"'  If  he   called  them  gods  unto  wiiom  the  word  of  God 


88  THE    DEITY    OF    CHRIST. 

came,  how  say  ye  of  him  whom  the  Father  hath  sanc- 
tified and  sent  into  the  world,  Thou  blasphemest,  be- 
cause I  said,  I  am  the  Son  of  God  ?  "  His  own 
exposition  of  his  lofty  claim,  "  I  and  my  Father  are 
one,"  is  when  he  prays  for  all  his  disciples  throughout 
the  world,  "  that  they  all  may  be  one  ;  as  thou, 
Father,  art  in  me,  and  I  in  thee,  that  they  also  may 
be  one  in  us  ;  that  the  world  may  believe  that  thou 
hast  sent  me." 


I 


DISCOUESE   V. 


THE  VICARIOUS  ATONEMENT. 

IF,  WHEN  WE  WERE  ENEMIES,  WE  WERE  RECONCILED  TO  GOD  BV 
THE  DEATH  OF  HIS  SON,  MUCH  MORE,  BEING  RECONCILED,  WE 
SHALL    BE    SAVED    BY    HIS    LIFE.  -^  RomariS  V.   10. 

In  the  two  preceding  Discourses,  I  have  endeavoured 
to  show  that  the  doctrines  of  the  Trinity  and  Deity 
of  Christ,  whatever  their  possible  truth  in  the  abstract 
reality  of  things,  cannot  be  so  established  and  prov^ed  as 
to  serve  for  a  basis  to  our  theory  of  the  Divine  govern- 
ment. The  evidence  is  too  imperfect,  the  interpreta- 
tions too  contradictory,  to  them  both,  to  suffer  them  to 
be  either  a  sufficient  or  an  intelligible  foundation  of  our 
faith.  The  doctrine  of  the  Atonement,  closely  con- 
nected with  and  presupposing  both,  must  be  taken  on  its 
own  merits  ;  it  cannot  derive  any  collateral  support  from 
them.  If  this  is  true,  they  are  also  true  ;  but  this  has  got 
to  be  established  first,  on  its  own  independent  evidence. 

And  as  the  Atonement  is  the  cardinal  point  in  the 
Orthodox  theory,  and  the  strong  point  in  Orthodox  inter- 
pretation, so  I  freely  confess  that  it  brings  more  difficulty, 
8* 


90  THE    VICARIOUS    ATONEMENT. 

creates  more  diversity  of  exposition,  and  is  less  satisfac- 
torily treated,  among  those  who  dissent  from  that  theory, 
than  any  or  all  the  other  points.  Not  that  there  is  any 
doubt  in  our  minds  as  to  th«  essential  correctness  of  our 
opinion.  On  the  contrary,  we  more  expressly  and  defi- 
nitely and  consistently  oppose  the  theory  of  the  Divine 
government  which  it  implies,  than  perhaps  any  other  one 
of  the  Orthodox  positions.  Elsewhere  we  make  conces- 
sions,—  yield  one  point  to  religious  feeling,  another  to 
obscurity  of  interpretation  ;  while,  this  is  the  very  doc- 
trine, the  very  system,  which  we  contend  against.  But 
our  concessions  elsewhere,  the  style  in  which  the  con- 
troversy is  carried  on,  are  just  what  make  it  difficult  to 
meet  point-blank  the  arguments  urged  here.  On  the 
usual  acknowledged  principles  of  Biblical  interpretation, 
there  is  certainly  an  apparent  advantage  on  the  other 
side. 

Our  difficulty  is  not  as  to  the  doctrine,  but  as  to  the 
style  of  argument  and  illustration  used  by  the  writers  of 
the  New  Testament.  Our  general  objections  to  the  doc- 
trine, as  connnonly  laid  down,  are  sufficiently  decided. 
We  are  quite  clear  in  our  own  minds  when  we  say,  in 
general,  that  Scripture  language  is  to  be  interpreted,  not 
like  the  strict  and  scientific  language  of  a  creed,  but  ac- 
cording to  the  exigencies  of  the  religious  sentiment  and 
the  way  of  thinking  of  the  time.  We  cannot,  indeed, 
always  draw  the  line,  and  say  how  much  latitude  we  may 
allow  to  the  religious  feeling,  how  much  is  to  be  ascribed 
to  the  customs  of  religious  thought.  And  so  we  are 
sometimes  hard  pushed  on  particular  expressions,  and 
forced  to  remain  in  doubt  of  the  precise  intention  of 
many  an  obscure  passage.  Still,  of  our  general  principle 
we   have  no  doubt   whatever  ;    and  as  to  the  points  of 


THE    VICARIOUS    ATONEMENT.  91 

critical  perplexity,  they  yield  one  by  one  as  we  study 
the  mind  and  history  of  the  apostles,  until,  in  these  last 
few  years,  we  have  (we  think)  as  consistent  and  full  and 
learned  an  exegesis  as  any  class  of  commentators,  and 
the  teachings  of  the  Testament  throughout  are  felt  to  be 
in  almost,  if  not  quite,  unbroken  harmony  with  our  essen- 
tial views  of  religious  truth. 

The  exposition  of  the  Scriptural  view  of  the  life  and 
death  of  Christ  has  been  so  fully  and  admirably  stated, 
by  several  well-known  writers,  that  it  need  not  be  de- 
tailed here,  and  I  pass  it  over  with  only  the  briefest  men- 
tion.* The  words  of  my  text  suggest  clearly  enough 
the  principle  we  follow  ;  and  they  are,  I  think,  wholly 
irreconcilable  with  the  Orthodox  statement  of  Christ's 
atoning  work.  "  If,  while  we  were  enemies,  we  were 
reconciled  to  God  by  the  death  of  his  Son,  much  more, 
being  reconciled,  we  shall  be  saved  by  his  life."  Here 
it  is  not  the  death  of  Christ  that  saves  us,  but  his  life, — 
evidently  by  creating  the  faith  and  moral  energy  and 
religious  affections  essential  to  the  spiritual  health  (or 
salvation)  of  our  soul.  It  is  not  God  that  is  reconciled 
to  man  by  the  death  of  his  Son,  but  man  that  is  recon- 
ciled to  God  ;  that  is,  the  reconciling  (or  atoning)  agency 
is  wrought  on  man's  mind,  in  the  sphere  of  our  affections, 
conscience,  and  reason.  Whatever  the  influence  is, 
then,  it  is  a  moral  influence,  acting  according  to  the 
laws  of  the  development  of  human  character  and  the  con- 
ditions of  human  life.  It  is  a  moral,  not  a  legal  work, 
done  in  the  sphere  of  man's  life,  and  not  in  that  of 
God's.     He  needs  no  reconciliation  with  man  ;  it  were 


*  See  Liverpool  Lectures,  Lect.  VL     One  part  of  this  exposition 
I  have  briefly  stated  below  (p.  97),  by  way  of  illustration. 


92  THE    VICARIOUS    ATONEMENT. 

Strange  impiety  to  think  it.  Nothing  is  needed  except 
that  state  of  man's  heart  which  makes  it  possible  for 
the  Divine  love  to  be  felt  there.  The  self-devotion  of 
Jesus  Christ  to  humiliation,  pain,  and  death  brings 
about  just  that  state,  —  no  matter  hov\^,  —  by  laws  God 
has  written  on  the  heart,  and  effects  just  that  reconcil- 
ing work  ;  this  then  is  to  be  followed  up  by  the  series 
of  moral  lessons  and  religious  influences  from  his  life, 
that  the  spiritual  growth  and  blessedness  of  the  soul  may 
be  complete. 

This,  as  I  understand  it,  is  the  religious  lesson  taught, 
not  only  in  this  passage,  but  throughout  the  Testament, 
in  connection  with  the  life  and  death  of  Christ.  It  is 
dwelt  on  continually,  fondly  ;  with  the  affectionate  con- 
stancy we  might  expect  in  the  personal  friends  of  Jesus ; 
with  such  emphasis  and  illustration  as  the  exigencies  of 
the  time  required.  I  presume  that  all  Orthodox  com- 
mentators cheerfully  accept  this  rendering,  —  of  the 
moral  influence  on  man  of  the  life  and  death  of  Christ, 
—  not  thinking  (which  I  do)  that  it  is  at  variance  with 
their  theory.  But  they  add  to  it  besides,  that  that  event 
fulfilled  a  purpose  in  the  Divine  economy  wholly  above 
and  aside  from  any  moral  influence  on  man  ;  that  it  was 
the  appointed  sacrifice  to  expiate  the  guilt  of  the  whole 
human  race  ;  that  it  was  in  the  strictest  sense  vicarious, 
or  accepted  instead  of  the  corresponding  suffering  to  be 
endured  by  men,  taking  the  place  of  their  just  punish- 
ment ;  that  its  efficacy  was  infinite,  as  involving  an  in- 
finite being  in  its  doom  ;  that  by  a  previous  appointment 
of  God,  wholly  independent  of  any  thing  in  the  human 
will,  its  merit  passes  over,  and  becomes  the  purchase- 
money,  the  ransom,  the  seal,  of  man's  redemption  ;  and, 
in  fine,  that  on  this  condition,  and  tliis  alone,  could  the 


THE    VICARIOUS    ATONEMENT.  93 

claims  of  God's  justice  and  mercy  be  reconciled,  or 
any  single  man  escape  the  penalty  due  to  the  infinite 
guilt  of  the  human  race.  It  is  in  this  region  of  specula- 
lion  and  dogma  that  we  find  ourselves  confronting  a 
hostile  theory.  This  is  the  view  of  the  Divine  govern- 
ment to  which  we  express  and  maintain  an  unqualified 
opposition. 

Of  the  class  of  ideas  involved  in  this  hypothesis, 
their  bearing  on  the  Divine  character  and  man's  condi- 
tion, I  have  spoken  somewhat  fully  before.  My  ob- 
ject now  is  to  examine  the  grounds  on  which  this  theory 
is  sustained,  and  to  show  its  variance  with  Scripture  and 
right  reason.  My  argument  will,  therefore,  be  contained 
in  these  two  main  points  :  —  first,  the  insufficiency  of 
the  evidence  on  which  this  doctrine  is  supposed  to  rest  ; 
second,  the  contradictory  and  impossible  nature  of  the 
ideas  contained  in  it.  And  for  the  sake  of  a  clearer  un- 
derstanding, T  will  first  recount  shortly  the  different  forms 
in  which  the  doctrine  has  been  held. 

The  leading  idea  now,  as  is  well  know^n,  is  that  of  an 
infinite  sacrifice,  supposed  to  be  required  by  the  consti- 
tution of  the  Divine  government,  to  vindicate  its  maj- 
esty, pay  the  penalty  due  to  sin,  and  (in  the  strange 
language  of  its  defenders)  "  enable  God  honorably  to 
pardon  human  guilt."  This  is  its  present,  hs  modern 
form  ;  not  its  first  or  ancient  form.  As  I  stated  in  my 
remarks  on  the  Trinity,  the  idea  of  an  infinite  sacrifice 
did  not  enter  definitely  into  the  statements  of  the  earlier 
creeds.  The  motive  then  was  simply  to  give  the  great- 
est possible  honor  to  Christ,  as  well  as  to  satisfy  the 
Greek  or  Eastern  spirit  of  speculation.  Finding,  how- 
ever, the  death  of  Jesus  spoken  of  as   a   ransom,   the 


94  THE    VICARIOUS    ATONEMENT. 

dogmatists  naturally  asked,  For  uhat  and  to  whom  was 
the  ransom  paid  ?  To  deliver  man  from  hell,  was  the 
reply  ;  and  it  must  have  been  paid  to  Satan,  for  his 
power  it  was  that  bound  men's  souls  in  hell.*  And  so 
the  received  opinion  was,  that  Christ's  death  was  the 
ransom  or  equivalent  paid  in  due  form  of  covenant  to 
Satan,  as  the  literal  purchase-money  of  man's  redemp- 
tion. And  this  interpretation  was  further  carried  out, 
by  saying  that  Christ  outwitted  Satan,  as  he  had  done 
to  Adam  in  paradise.  He  cheated  iVdam,  by  promis- 
ing gifts  which  proved  treacherous,  — as,  in  legends  and 
fables,  the  coin  the  Devil  pays  is  said  always -to  turn 
into  dry  leaves  and  dust.  And  just  so,  in  retaliation, 
Christ  persuaded  Satan  to  take  him  as  substitute  for  the 
whole  human  race  ;  then,  he  consenting,  and  so  losing 
his  hold  on  man,  Christ,  in  virtue  of  his  omnipotence, 
escaped  and  foiled  the  Adversary  at  his  own  weapons. 
"  Under  the  bait  of  the  flesh,"  to  use  a  favorite  ex- 
pression, "  the  hook  of  the  Divinity  was  hid."  Strange 
as  this  sounds  to  us,  it  is  yet  perfectly  in  keeping  with 
the  spirit  of  those  times,  —  especially  of  the  Italian  or 
Etruscan  priesthood,  from  which  many  ideas  were  in- 
herited in  the  Church  of  Rome.  This  was  the  first 
distinct  and  consistent  form  in  which  the  doctrine  of 
Christ's  sacrifice  was  held,  —  not  regarded  then  as 
strictly  infinite,  but  only  as  of  such  a  sort  as  to  serve 
for  a  sufficient  decoy  and  bait  to  Satan. 

A  thousand  years  after  the  apostolic  times,  another 
theory  was  developed,  —  still  most  prominent  in  the 
Roman  Church,  and  making  one  part  of  the  modern 
Orthodox  scheme.     It  was,  that  the  merits  of  Christ, 

*  Christian  Examiner,  July,  1845.     Prospective  Review,  Vol.   I. 
No.  4. 


THE    VICARIOUS    ATONEMENT.  95 

and  his  death,  were  the  literal  payment  of  our  debt  to 
God,  and  so  entitle  man  to  his  forgiveness.  For  man 
owes  all  to  God.  The  perfect  obedience  of  every 
thought,  act,  wish,  would  'not  be  more  than  enough. 
No  man  does  or  can  pay  off  his  own  account  ;  but 
the  merits  of  Christ  being  infinite,  and  "  imputed  "  to 
man,  there  is  laid  up  as  it  were  an  infinite  treasury  of 
good  works,  out  of  which  benefit  will  be  had  by  certain 
conditions.  And  the  Catholic  theory  is,  that  the  Church 
is  the  depositary  of  this  resource  ;  its  ministers  keep 
the  treasury-keys  ;  and  it  can  make  dispensation,  in  its 
own  way,  to  remove  the  penalty  of  man's  guilt.  And 
hence  the  whole  theory  of  indulgences. 

And  lastly,  out  of  this,  by  an  easy  transition,  was  de- 
veloped the  modern  doctrine,  which  I  have  more  fully 
set  forth.  In  this  the  prominent  idea  is  the  vindication 
of  the  honor  or  Integrity  of  the  Divine  government, 
together  with  the  metaphysical  impossibility  of  remov- 
ing the  penalty  of  sin  except  its  infinite  guilt  be  atoned 
for  by  an  infinite  corresponding  sacrifice  ;  which,  again, 
could  only  be  offered  by  God  himself. 

It  will  be  observed  that  the  metaphysical  part  of  the 
theory,  or  that  which  is  out  of  the  range  of  man's  char- 
acter and  ability,  has  been  gradually  retreating,  —  be- 
coming more  refined  and  abstract,  —  while  the  moral  part 
has  come  more  and  more  clearly  into  view.  The  rude 
and  coarse  idea  at  first  w^as,  an  actual  compact  between 
God  and  the  Devil,  for  the  purchase  of  man,  as  a  piece 
of  goods,  or  his  ransom,  as  a  literal  prisoner  or  slave  ; 
while  now  it  is  the  most  remote  and  abstract  point  of 
metaphysical  reasoning  to  define  moral  evil  in  such  a 
w^ay  as  to  make  it  require,  or  even  allow,  the  actual 
sacrifite  of  atonement.      Then,  man  was  held  to  be  in 


96  THE    VICARIOUS    ATONEMENT. 

passive  bondage,  and  passively  transferred  :  now,  a 
thousand  moral  influences  are  acting  on  him,  to  deter- 
mine his  spiritual  state,  —  at  most  presupposing  a  cer- 
tain previous  condition  or  method  of  administering  the 
government  of  God.  Even  those  who  hold  the  Ortho- 
dox view  abstractly  yet  prefer  to  dwell  upon  the  human 
side  ;  and  it  is  not  hard  to  see  that  this  element  will 
soon  outgrow  and  swallow  up  the  other  wholly.  And 
my  purpose  now  is  to  show  that  this  result  is  both 
necessary  and  right  ;  in  other  words,  that  the  meta- 
physical element,  included  in  the  so-called  doctrine  of 
the  Atonement,  is  a  gratuitous  and  needless  inference 
from  Scripture,  and  repugnant  both  to  reason  and  our 
highest  view  of  right.  *• 

I.  The  Scripture  proof,  adduced  in  support  of  the 
Orthodox  view  of  Atonement  is  imperfect,  and  not  to  be 
relied  on.  The  word  itself  is  found  only  once  in  the 
New  Testament,  and  then  in  a  passage  (corresponding 
to  my  text)  where,  by  universal  allowance,  it  should  be 
"  reconciliation."  It  is  a  word  which,  in  its  proper 
meaning,  belongs  only  to  the  Old  Testament,  where  it 
signifies  something  very  like  the  Roman  Catholic  idea  of 
penance,  only  paid  m  the  form  of  sacrifice, — that  is, 
the  design  being  not  to  make  up  for  a  moral  offence  com- 
mitted, which  would  have  been  an  encouragement  to 
immorality,  but  to  expiate  some  legal  offence^  or  dis- 
ability, or  "  impurity,"  from  which  one  was  ransomed, 
and  restored  to  his  full  religious  privileges  as  a  Jew, 
by  a  certain  prescribed  form  of  sacrifice,  —  the  ar- 
rears, or  residue  unatoned  for,  being  made  up  in  the 
manner  which  I  shall  presently  mention.  This  is  the 
idea  of  "  atonement,"  as  found  among  the  Jews.  It 
had  nothing  to  do  with  moral  guilt  ;  only  pagan  priest- 


THE    VICARIOUS    ATONEMENT.  97 

hoods  professed  to  expiate  that  by  gifts.  But  it  refer- 
red to  the  ritual  law,  and  the  Jewish  national  observ- 
ances of  sacrifice.  And  so,  in  the  legitimate  and  proper 
meaning  of  the  word,  it  evidently  has  nothing  to  do  with 
the  death  of  Christ. 

At  the  same  time,  it  is  easy  to  see  how  the  religious 
customs  of  the  Jews,  established  for  centuries,  would  be 
constantly  used  among  them  in  illustration  of  religious 
ideas  ;  and  especially  how  Jewish  Christians  would  seek 
to  blend  the  new  faith  with  the  old,  by  tracing  every 
possible  analogy  that  could  be  found  or  fancied  in  the 
Old  Testament.  To  explain  this  fully  requires  far  more 
time  and  attention  than  can  be  given  to  it  here  ;  but  a 
single  illustration  will  show  partly  what  I  mean. 

The  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  (which  was  very  prob- 
ably written  by  Apollos,  the  friend  of  Paul)  endeavours, 
from  first  to  last,  to  meet  the  Hebrew  prejudices,  and 
reconcile  the  Jews  to  the  simplicity  of  the  Christian 
faith.  This  could  be  done  only  through  the  medium  of 
their  previous  ideas.  Christianity,  without  priest  or  rit- 
ual, was  a  thing  they  could  not  comprehend  ;  and  even 
those  inclined  towards  the  new  religion  contemplated 
this  feature  of  it  with  vague  terror  and  dislike.  Now  the 
writer  must  show,  if  possible,  on  Jewish  principles^  how 
the  ritual  not  only  might  be,  but  actually  had  been,  done 
away.  One  main  point  of  his  argument  may  be  stated 
thus.*  On  the  great  annual  festival  of  Atonement,  or 
expiation,  the  high-priest  went  within  the  vail  of  the  tem- 
ple, and  sprinkled  the  blood  of  the  victim  on  the  mercy- 
seat,  expiating  thus  the  thousand  legal  offences  for  which 
due  propitiation  had  not  been  already  made.  At  that 
moment    the    burden  of  legal  debt  was   lifted  off  from 


Liverpool  Lectures,  Lect.  VL 

9 


98  THE    VICARIOUS    ATONEMENT. 

the  entire  people  ;  and  while  he  remained  within  the 
vail,  the  usual  sacrifices  were  superseded.  Now  Christ, 
the  great  high-priest  of  the  new  dispensation,  had  passed 
with  his  own  blood  as  victim,  behind  the  vail  of  mor- 
tality, to  the  mercy-seat,  or  immediate  presence  of  God. 
By  the  strictest  interpretation  of  the  Jewish  law,  all 
sacrifices  are  therefore  suspended  ;  and,  pn  their  own 
principles,  while  he  is  within  the  vail,  the  ceremonial 
worship  is  no  longer  required.  Christ's  peculiar  fitness, 
both  as  priest  (for  he  is  near  to  us  in  human  sympathy, 
and  can  "  be  touched  with  the  feeling  of  our  infirm- 
ities ")  and  as  victim  (for  in  the  innocence  of  his  life  he 
is  "a  lamb  without  spot  or  blemish"),  is  elaborately 
argued  and  illustrated  ;  and  the  reasoning  is  brought  to  a 
focus,  as  it  were,  by  comparing  the  sixteenth  chapter  of 
Leviticus  with  the  ninth  of  this  Epistle. 

But  there  were  still  other  points  that  gave  uneasiness 
to  the  mind  of  Jews  taught  to  believe  implicitly  in  the 
ancient  faith.  Among  the  rest,  the  sacred  line  of  the 
priesthood,  unbroken  from  the  time  of  Aaron,  must  not 
be  broken  in  upon,  they  thought  ;  and  even  granting 
Christ  to  be  such  a  priest  as  was  needed  in  the  new 
dispensation,  how  will  he  satisfy  this  claim  ?  To  an- 
swer this,  the  writer  reminds  them  of  a  royal  priest,  who 
lived  in  old  traditionary  times,  long  before  Aaron,  to 
whom  Abraham  himself,  the  father  of  the  faithful,  did 
honor  ;  far  higher,  then,  in  dignity  than  any  son  of  Abra- 
ham could  be.  And  here,  says  he,  is  just  such  a  priest 
as  Christ.  This  old  Melchisedek,  — without  any  record- 
ed father  or  mother,  —  of  whom  you  know  not  so  much 
as  when  he  began  to  live  or  when  he  died,  —  he  is  the 
great  royal  priest  of  our  ancient  history.  God's  own 
anointing  gave  him  his  priestly  dignity,  —  not  any  hered- 
itary descent ;  and  just  so  it  is  with  Christ. 


THE    VICARIOUS    ATONEMENT.  99 

.  Now,  this  turn  of  argument  shows  how  impossible  it  Is 
for  us  to  reason,  with  any  confidence,  from  the  style  of 
illustrations  used  in  arguments  to  the  Jews  and  Gentiles 
of  that  period.  As  to  this  very  instance,  all  sorts  of 
strange  hypotheses  have  been  invented  to  account  for 
the  mention  of  old  JNIelchisedek,  and  set  aside  the  plain 
and  simple  meaning.  Some  have  gone  so  far  as  to  con- 
jecture vaguely  that  he  might  be  God  himself,  revealing 
himself  to  Abraham  ;  others,  that  he  might  be  Christ  in  a 
preexistent  state,  or  a  man  miraculously  made,  like  Adam, 
without  any  human  parents.  He  has  also  been  supposed 
to  be  the  Holy  Spirit,  an  angel,  or  Enoch,  who  lived 
before  the  flood.  Calmet  elaborately  argues  that  he  was 
probably  Shem,  the  son  of  Noah.  And  a  sect  arose  in 
the  early  centuries  affirming  him  to  be  the  superior  of 
Christ,  and  adopting  his  name,  instead  of  Christ's,  for 
their  designation.  The  plain  meaning  seems  to  be,  that 
he  occurred  to  the  Apostle's  (or  writer's)  mind,  as  an 
excellent  instance  to  show  the  very  point  he  was  urging, 
—  a  case  in  hand  to  prove  the  simple,  and  to  us  very 
obvious  proposition,  that  one  can  be  just  as  good  a 
priest,  even  if  his  father  was  not  a  priest  before  him, 
and  we  know  nothing  whatever  of  his  history. 

It  seems  to  me,  then,  entirely  impossible  and  unauthor- 
ized to  force  an  argument  from  the  style  of  illustrations 
used  in  the  Testament,  so  as  to  give  a  particular  dog- 
matic meaning  to  the  life  and  death  of  Christ.  It  is 
undeniable,  that  only  by  such  a  style  of  argument  can 
the  doctrine  of  the  Atonement  be  sustained  a  single  hour. 
Deprive  it  of  the  support  found  in  a  few  appeals,  illus- 
trations, religious  phrases  of  speech  of  this  class,  and  it 
falls  directly  to  the  ground.  To  uphold  it,  you  must 
take  a  certain  class  of  arguments,  similar  to  that  I  have 


100  THE    VICARIOUS    ATONEMENT. 

just  cited  in  reference  to  Melchisedek ;  you  must  insist 
upon  their  literal  and  extreme  construction,  divorce  them 
from  their  connection  with  the  prevalent  religious  ideas 
and  the  subject-matter  of  the  Christian  faith  as  a  whole, 
read  them  as  closely  and  severely  as  a  formula  in  alge- 
braic signs  and  symbols,  and  in  that  way  evolve  your 
metaphysical  theory,  which  thenceforward  you  make  the 
keystone  of  your  structure  and  the  cardinal  point  of  your 
whole  religious  scheme.  It  would  be  tedious  and  un- 
profitable to  go  critically  over  the  whole  ground,  and 
expound  one  by  one  the  phrases  and  figures  of  speech 
supposed  to  favor  that  theory.  From  the  general  state- 
ment I  have  made,  which  (whatever  the  abstract  truth 
or  falseness  of  the  doctrine)  is  plainly  and  undeniably 
correct,  you  will  see  how  false  must  be  the  principle, 
and  how  unsatisfactory  the  evidence,  by  which  a  doctrine 
so  derived  must  be  sustained.  I  do  not  deny  or  disguise 
the  difficulty  of  special  passages  ;  but  I  do  say,  that  to 
found  one's  theory  on  those  difficulties,  and  make  dark 
things  serve  as  the  basis  and  interpretation  of  what  is 
plain,  is  utterly  to  reverse  the  process  of  a  healthy  mind, 
and  to  set  us  all  afloat  as  to  any  principles  of  belief 
whatever. 

Now,  contrast  with  this  obscure  and  uncertain  style  of 
Scriptural  reasoning  the  simple,  affectionate,  spiritual 
style  which  we  find  at  the  fountain-head.  To  Christ 
himself  we  should  surely  go  to  learn  the  intention  of  his 
mission,  especially  from  his  hints  to  interpret  if  we  may 
the  mystery  of  his  death.  And,  as  if  expressly  not  to 
leave  us  in  the  dark  on  so  interesting  a  matter,  or  to  cor- 
rect beforehand  the  abuses  and  crude  superstitions  that 
were  sure  to  come  up,  there  is  left  recorded  a  conversa- 
tion of  Jesus  with  his  disciples  on  this  very  point,  —  the 


THE    VICARIOUS    ATONEMENT.  101 

saving  influence  of  his  life  and  death,  —  held  just  before 
he  suffered,  and  longer  than  all  his  other  recorded  dis- 
courses put  together,  excepting  one.     And  what  does  he 
say  of  an  atoning  sacrifice,  the  discharge  of  an  infinite 
penalty,  the  ransom  of  the  guilty  by  the  suff'erings  of  the 
innocent  ?     Not  a  word,  not  a  syllable.      So  far  as  I  am 
aware,  not  a  single  sentence  from  this  discourse  of  Christ, 
or  any  other,  has  ever  been  brought  up  in  support  of  the 
Orthodox  theory  ;  at  least,  except  in  illustration  of  those 
points  of  motive  and  affection  which  belong  in  common 
to  every  Christian.    The  Gospel  ground  has  been  quietly 
abandoned,  for  purposes  of  theological  argument,  to  those 
of  differing  belief.     To  sustain  that  theory,  recourse  must 
always  be  had  to  the   involved  and  perplexing  train  of 
argument  or  style  of  illustration  used  in  combating  the 
scruples,  and  braiding  in  the  Christian  idea  with  the  pre- 
vious  religious   thoughts   and   habits  and   prejudices,  of 
Jews  or  pagans,  —  and  these  often  violent,  bigoted,  way- 
ward, cavilling  adversaries  of  the  simple  truth.    No  won- 
der this  w^ay  of  reasoning  w'as  adopted,  for  there  was  none 
other.      Nothing  but  the  most  perverse    ingenuity,    the 
most  singular  love  of  paradox  and  hidden  meaning,  could 
possibly  imagine  any  thing  in  the  Gospel  story  but  the 
personal  appeal,  the  living  faith,  the  spiritual  presence, 
the  sanctifying  influence,  of  the  living  or  departed  Sav- 
iour, as  felt  and  recognized  in  the  affectionate  mind  of 
those  who  saw  him  and  listened  to  his  words.     His  death, 
as  he  speaks  of  it,  has  no  supernatural  and  metaphysical 
efficacy  on  the  purposes  and  w^ays  of  God.     It  is  sim- 
ply a  return  to  the  Father  ;  the  seal  of  his  living  tes- 
timony ;   the  condition  of  his  spiritual  presence,  and  of 
the  coming  of  the  pure  Spirit  of  Truth,  to  dwell  in  their 
hearts. 


102  THE    VICARIOUS    ATONEBIENT. 

II.  Having  remarked  thus  much  of  the  quality  and 
style  of  the  Scriptural  argument,  I  proceed  briefly  to 
consider  the  merits  of  the  theory  itself  ;  taking  its  own 
claims  and  pretensions,  accepting  its  most  plausible  and 
consistent  shape,  and  endeavouring  to  see  how  it  comes 
recommended  to  our  intellectual  and  moral  sense. 

The  first  thing  we  observe  in  it  is,  that  a  huge  defi- 
ciency is  left  in  the  theory  of  redemption,  which  there 
is  not  even  the  smallest  pretence  to  supply.  The  very 
terms  in  which  it  must  be  stated  carry  their  own  refuta- 
tion along  with  them.  Of  the  strange  and  pagan  idea 
of  a  "  conflict  of  attributes  "  in  the  Divine  nature,  I 
have  spoken  before.  I  need  not  repeat  now  what  I  said 
then,  or  stop  to  prove  (what  is  very  plain)  that  this  con- 
flict is  essential  to  the  scheme.  But  here  we  are  met 
by  the  inquiry.  If  there  was  a  chasm  or  conflict  between 
the  qualities  of  mercy  and  justice  in  the  mind  of  God, 
and  if  Christ  (which  is  also  essential  to  this  theory)  was 
really  and  truly  God,  coequal  with  the  Father,  must 
there  not  have  been  the  same  conflict  of  attributes  in 
him  too  ^  Is  the  Father  deficient  in  mercy,  that  he  re- 
quires so  terrible  a  sacrifice  ?  Or  has  the  Son  only  an 
obscure  and  feeble  sense  of  justice,  that  he  can  "  hon- 
orably," not  only  overlook  man's  guilt,  but  so  love  the 
world  as  to  give  himself  to  die  for  it  ?  If  the  honor  of 
God  did  not  allow  him  to  pardon  the  guilty,  could  that 
same  honor  allow  him  to  punish  the  innocent  ?  Or  else, 
would  not  the  "justice"  of  the  Son  require  satisfac- 
tion too,  —  and  so  a  series  of  infinite  sacrifices  be  de- 
manded, ad  infinitum  9  Or  if  one  is  enough,  why  is 
any  needed  at  all  ?  If  the  rest  of  the  series  be  remit- 
ted, why  not  this  ?  The  answer  will  be,  that  God  re- 
quired the  sacrifice,  and  God  endured  it,  and  so  the  cir- 


THE    VICARIOUS    ATONEMENT.  103 

cle  is  complete.  So  it  is  ;  and  it  is  simply  a  circle  of 
operations  in  the  mind  of  God.  And  I  say  the  state- 
ment of  the  doctrine  carries  its  own  refutation  ;  be- 
cause, when  fairly  presented  and  reasoned  out,  it  reduces 
itself  to  this  :  —  Whatever  the  demands  of  Divine  jus- 
tice^  suppose  them  even  infinite,  they  are  perfectly  and 
adequately  met  by  the  infinite  love  of  God.  We  have 
not  so  much  to  dread  from  his  sovereignty,  as  to  trust  in 
his  power.  x\nd  the  fiction  of  a  suffering  God,  endur- 
ing a  penalty  exacted  by  himself,  is  only  a  device  to 
render  that  glorious  conception  familiar  to  our  imperfect 
mind. 

But  the  dogmatist  will  insist  that  the  sacrifice  was 
actually  and  historically  accomplished  in  the  death  of 
Christ.  To  this  we  can  only  reply  by  the  unanswer- 
able dilemma  which  has  been  employed  from  the  first, 
and  from  which  no  refuge  can  be  found,  except  in  an 
unmeaning  form  of  words.  Either  the  infinite  nature  of 
God  suffered  upon  the  cross,  or  the  finite  nature  of  man. 
If  you  say  the  former,  you  commit  the  strange  and  un- 
intelligible blasphemy  of  saying,  that  the  infinite  and  per- 
fect is  subject  to  limitation,  distress,  and  harm,  —  to  all 
the  worst  and  most  humiliating  conditions  of  man's  im- 
perfection. If  you  say  the  latter,  then  the  doctrine  of 
an  infinite  sacrifice  falls  to  the  ground  at  once.  Or  if 
you  insist,  yet  further,  that  both  natures  were  mysterious- 
ly blended  in  Jesus,  you  do  not  yet  evade  the  difficulty. 
One  or  the  other  nature  in  him  must  suffer  :  which  was 
it  ?  And  if  you  take  the  last  resource,  of  saying  that 
the  union  of  attributes  in  him  was  of  such  a  sort  that 
the  sufferings  of  the  man  were  "judicially  attributed" 
to  the  God,  and  it  was  regarded  in  the  Divine  economy 
as  if  the  infinite  nature  had  suffered  to  redeem  an  in- 


104  THE    VICARIOUS    ATONEMENT. 

finite  amount  of  guilt,  then  you  fall  back  just  where  I 
wish,  —  on  the  free  and  abundant  mercy  of  God.  And 
your  real  meaning  is,  not  that  God  does  demand,  but 
that,  in  consideration  of  his  own  infinite  perfection  and 
the  feebleness  and  misery  of  man,  he  does  not  demand 
an  infinite  penalty  to  expiate  our  human  guilt,  and, 
though  conscience  may  tell  us  we  deserve  it,  has  yet 
symbolically  shown,  in  the  death  of  Jesus,  that  the  re- 
sources of  Divine  love  are  boundless,  so  that  no  human 
being  need  despair.  Here,  evidently  enough,  whether 
you  retain  the  symbol  or  not,  you  desert  the  dogmatic 
meaning,  and  fall  back  on  the  pure,  simple,  religious 
truth,  appealing  only  to  the  mind,  conscience,  and  heart 
of  men. 

A  further  illustration  may  be  addressed  to  those  fa- 
miliar with  the  theory  of  mathematics.  Allowing  the 
full  and  literal  exactness  of  the  statement,  that  the  suf- 
fering endured  by  an  infinite  being  constitutes  an  infinite 
sacrifice,  we  have  not  got  to  the  bottom  of  the  difficulty. 
We  may  thus  admit  that  the  agony  of  Christ  was  equal 
in  intensity  to  the  infinite  agony  of  hell,  but  it  was 
only  momentary  in  duration.  In  hell,  infinite  intensity 
and  duration  are  supposed  to  be  combined,  while  the 
penalty  is  liable  to  be  inflicted  on  an  infinite  number. 
Thus  "  an  infinite  quantity  of  the  first  degree  "  (in  the 
language  of  mathematics)  is  compared  with  "  an  infi- 
nite quantity  of  the  second  degree,"  and  the  ratio  be- 
tween them,  as  all  mathematicians  know,  is  nothing  ;  or 
with  one  of  the  third  degree,  where  it  is  infinitely  less 
than  nothing.  Or,  taking  in  the  difference  between  a 
divine  and  a  human  soul,  to  set  off  against  the  endless 
generations  of  the  human  race,  the  comparison  will  be 
only  one  degree  improved  ;  so  that  Christ  himself  could 


THE    VICARIOUS    ATONEMENT.  105 

not  make  good  the  penally  for  all,  and  would  be  pre- 
cisely as  far  from  it  as  a  mere  man  from  making  atone- 
ment for  a  single  person.  Remember,  it  is  the  Ortho- 
dox creed  which  forces  on  us  this  discussion  of  infinites, 
and  makes  its  strong  point  from  it.  It  is  no  choice  of 
ours  ;  but  if  we  must  take  it,  we  will  go  with  it  as  far 
as  any  one.  Take  the  doctrine  at  its  word,  concede 
its  leading  principle,  and  we  see  how  it  instantly  con- 
futes and  swallows  up  itself.  The  difference,  on  its  own 
terms,  is  enormous,  infinite  ;  and  all  it  can  reply  is,  that 
the  free  mercy  of  God  allows  this  difference. 

But  still  further  :  granting  all  that  the  doctrine  would 
imply,  its  practical  signification  is  lost  and  cast  aside  in 
the  concessions  of  its  advocates,  or  rather  in  their  stren- 
uous and  urgent  demand  for  something  more.  I  find  in 
the  course  of  reasoning  employed  in  illustrating  a  com- 
paratively moderate  view  of  the  Calvinistic  scheme,  the 
following  extraordinary  paragraph  :  — 

"Notwithstanding  the  unlimited  provision  of  the  Gos- 
pel, all,  when  left  to  themselves,  with  one  consent  re- 
ject the  overtures  of  mercy,  and  will  not  come  unto 
Christ  that  they  might  have  life.  Even  when  the  spirit 
strives,  they  do  always  resist.  No  sense  of  guilt  and 
danger,  no  consciousness  of  obligation  and  duty,  no 
pressure  of  motives,  will  constrain  a  living  man  to  lay 
down  the  arms  of  rebellion,  and  be  reconciled  to  God. 
If  the  Spirit  of  God  does  not  put  forth  the  power  and 
glory  of  his  grace,  to  wrest  the  weapons  of  revolt  from 
his  hands,  and  put  a  new  spirit  within  him,  and  make  the 
sinner  willing  in  the  day  of  his  power,  all  are  lost,  and 
Christ  is  dead  in  t"«in." 

In  perfect  accordance  with  this,  I  have  heard  it  rep- 
resented,   that,    even   after   his   death  and  resurrection, 


106  THE    VICARIOUS    ATONEMENT. 

Christ  may  be  supposed  as  still  doubtful  whether  his  sac- 
rifice would  be  accepted,  until  he  rose  to  heaven  and 
took  his  place  beside  the  eternal  throne.  That  is,  in 
plain  words,  the  whole  vast  apparatus  being  brought  in 
play,  the  infinite  agony  having  been  endured,  it  is  doubt- 
ful whether  God  will  even  yet  relent,  and  perfectly  cer- 
tain that  man  will  spurn  the  boon  of  mercy.  If  any 
thing  could  be  added  to  the  hideous  atrocity  of  such  a 
statement,  it  would  be  the  dogmatic  inference  which 
follows.  "  When  Christ,  in  the  covenant  of  peace,  en- 
gaged to  lay  down  his  life  for  the  world,  a  stipulated 
number  was  given  him  as  his  reward."  These  are  the 
"  elect.''''  God  can  now  choose  whom  he  will  to  eter- 
nal life,  and  is  perfectly  clear  of  partiality  or  blame  in 
condemning  all  the  rest  to  eternal  death  !  In  other 
words,  by  making  an  offer  which  he  knew  beforehand 
would  be  rejected,  he  finds  the  excuse  he  wanted  for 
condemning  the  vast  majority  of  mankind  to  the  inexora- 
ble torments  of  hell  for  ever  ! 

Thus  is  this  doctrine  strictly  and  logically  reasoned 
out  to  its  last  results.  There  is  no  over-statement  or 
caricature  in  what  has  now  been  said.  The  worst 
things  I  have  shown  you  are  quoted  word  for  word  from 
a  moderate  and  popular  exposition  of  a  milder  form  of 
the  Calvinistic  creed.  It  is  such  theology  as  it  is  sup- 
posed will  go  down  now  in  New  England,  where  the 
popular  mind  is  no  doubt  more  liberalized  than  in  any 
country  where  Calvinism  has  extensively  prevailed.  By 
going  back  a  hundred  years,  and  taking  another  class  of 
writers,  I  could  display  far  more  extravagant  and  terri- 
ble representations  than  these.  But  what  I  have  repre- 
sented is  precisely  the  last  result  of  the  Orthodox  the- 
ory, as  consistently  held  at  the  present  day  ;  and  I  do 


THE    VICARIOUS    ATONEMENT.  107 

not  know  very  well  how  to  describe  it  in  milder  lan- 
guage than  I  have  now  used.  And  I  think  I  have  said 
enough  to  show  that,  in  whatever  way  you  look  at  that 
theory,  it  reduces  itself  to  an  incredible  paradox.  It 
annihilates  its  own  first  principles  ;  it  is  involved  in  a 
dilemma  from  which  there  is  no  escape  ;  by  acknowledg- 
ment, it  does  not  answer  its  end  ;  and  it  results  at  last  in 
what,  to  one  not  familiar  with  such  ideas,  seems  a  fright- 
ful and  appalling  blasphemy. 

And,  in  fine,  our  objections  to  this  doctrine  may  be 
summed  up  in  this  one  word.  We  do  not,  we  cannot, 
believe  in  any  such  God,  or  such  theory  of  sin  and  its 
consequences,  as  is  taken  for  granted  here.  The  moral 
difficulty  in  it  is  worse  tban  even  the  intellectual,  and 
absolutely  insurmountable.  Besides  the  radical  contra- 
diction of  God  being  unable  honorably  to  forgive  the 
world,  and  then  able  not  only  to  forgive  but  to  suffer  and 
die  for  it  ;  besides  the  strange  and  barbarous  assump- 
tion, that  the  torture  of  an  infinite  and  holy  being  could 
restore  God's  damaged  honor  and  make  amends  for  hu- 
man guilt  ;  besides  the  dilemma  of  supposing  that  the 
Infinite  nature  can  suffer  harm,  or  else  of  finding  no  ex- 
piation after  all  ;  besides  the  matching  of  one  infinity 
against  a  combination  of  three,  —  time  and  number  being 
superadded  to  intensity,  to  make  the  sufferings  of  man 
by  a  double  infinity  more  than  those  of  Christ ;  besides 
the  acknowledged  failure  of  the  whole  scheme,  unless  a 
new  order  of  Divine  operations  be  brought  in  to  compel 
its  partial  success  ;  —  all  which  objections  we  have  found 
lying  against  the  scheme  of  vicarious  sacrifice  ;  —  the 
moral  theory  of  man's  nature  which  it  Involves  is  worse 
than  all.  As  if  moral  guilt  could  be  even  "judicially  " 
transferred,  and  assumed  by  some  one  else,  like  a  pecu- 


108  THE    VICARIOUS    ATONEMENT. 

niary  debt  !  As  if  the  great  retribution  which  every  soul 
must  undergo  for  its  own  wrong,  in  virtue  of  its  own 
moral  nature,  could  be  averted  by  another's  suffering  ! 
As  if  a  conscience  awake  to  the  reality  of  sin  and  the 
glorious  prospect  of  holiness  and  spiritual  life  could  con- 
sent to  receive,  or  entertain  the  possibility  of  receiving, 
absolution  on  such  terms,  transferring  its  own  penalty, 
and  appropriating  another's  righteousness  !  If  the  moral 
influence  of  Christ's  death  creates  such  a  spirit  in  man 
as  to  wipe  away  his  guilt,  then  nothing  more  is  required. 
Guilt  itself,  speaking  morally,  is  the  penalty,  the  bond- 
age, the  revenge  of  guilt  ;  and  the  faith  and  love  that 
have  superseded  it  are  the  very  blessing  that  w^as  to  be 
sought.  If  the  guilt  is  not  removed,  the  salvation  is  not 
possible.  Spiritual  blessedness  cannot  be  put  upon  a 
man  from  without,  like  clothes  or  riches.  It  is  inconsis- 
tent with  the  condition  of  a  guilty  soul.  And  if  the  guilt 
is  removed,  what  do  we  want  besides  ? 

So  here,  again,  we  find  ourselves  reduced  to  an  alter- 
native, either  branch  of  which  destroys  the  force  of  the 
Orthodox  dogma.  Either  the  moral  influence  of  Christ's 
life  and  death,  in  combination  with  other  providential 
influence,  prevails  on  the  human  heart  to  renounce  its 
sin,  or  it  does  not.  If  it  does,  it  would  be  daring  im- 
piety to  say  that  God  requires  any  thing  more  before  he 
will  abate  the  penalty  of  sin,  and  so  the  Atonement  is  no 
longer  needed  ;  or  if  it  does  not,  then  man  is  not  in 
a  condition  to  receive  salvation  at  all,  and  the  Atone- 
ment is  no  longer  possible.  If  you  escape  from  this 
by  saying  that  God  in  addition  will  work  upon  the  hearts 
of  the  elect,  and  compel  them  to  receive  the  favor  they 
had  refused,  then  you  commit  two  more  blunders  ;  first, 
by  defying  all  the  laws  of  man's  moral  constitution,  which 


THE    VICARIOUS    ATONEMENT.  109 

cannot  receive  any  form  of  blessedness  without  being 
morally  fit  for  it ;  and  second,  by  ascribing  to  the  free 
and  even  compulsory  mercy  of  God  after  the  sacrifice  of 
Christ  what  you  maintained  it  to  be  dangerous  and  im- 
possible for  him  to  grant  before. 

I  do  not  suppose  that  these  inconsistencies  and  sole- 
cisms are  present  consciously  in  the  mind  of  those  who 
advocate  this  scheme.  Or  if  they  ever  become  faintly 
aware  of  them,  they  are  overborne  by  the  single  point  of 
practical  religious  faith  contained  in  it.  This  I  have  en- 
deavoured to  bring  out  in  clear  relief,  as  the  conclusion  of 
each  section  of  my  argument,  lest  you  might  think  I 
overlook  or  deny  the  religious  significance  of  the  dogma. 
This  I  by  no  means  do.  1  have  represented  it  uniformly 
as  a  symbolical  or  mythological  or  dognnatic  way  of  rep- 
resenting the  perfect  love  and  infinite  mercy  associated  in 
the  Christian  scheme  with  the  awful  sovereignty  of  God. 
The  statement,  that  the  sacrifice  was  literally  required 
and  actually  made,  I  treat  as  a  symbol  or  "myth"; 
and  the  real  meaning  of  it  I  consider  to  be  the  glorious 
truth  which  I  have  already  expressed.  And  this  is  in 
point  of  fact  the  very  meaning  which  is  always  seized 
and  held  in  the  religious  heart.  No  man,  when  he  is 
told  to  repose  his  hope  of  God's  mercy  on  the  sufferings 
of  Christ,  thinks  of  God's  previous  inexorable  wrath, 
which  made  such  sufferings  essential  before  he  would 
forgive  ;  neither  does  he  think  of  the  lost  condition  of 
the  mass  of  men,  to  whom  the  Atonement  does  not 
apply  ;  still  less  of  the  immense  probability  (according  to 
this  scheme)  that  he  himself  is  of  those  abandoned  by 
God  and  lost.  It  is  a  curious  fact,  and  one  which  does 
infinite  honor  to  man's  natural  confidence  in  God,  that 
10 


110  THE   VICARIOUS    ATONEMENT. 

every  person  tacitly  assumes  (whatever  his  religious 
theory)  that  he  himself  is  one  of  the  electa  —  at  least  so 
far  as  this,  that,  if  he  does  his  part,  he  has  nothing  to 
fear  on  God's  part.  This,  I  say,  is  a  part  of  every 
man's  natural  faith  ;  and  is  never  shaken,  except  at  some 
crisis  of  momentary  excitement,  or  some  condition  of 
religious  frenzy.  It  is  the  normal  and  healthy  attitude  of 
the  soul  ;  and  it  is  always  taken  advantage  of  in  urging 
the  motive  of  hope  in  the  Calvinistic  scheme,  even 
though  its  more  dreadful  and  implacable  features  are 
held  in  reserve.  Ask  any  believer  in  it  what  it  is  that 
recommends  it,  and  he  will  tell  you,  the  point  of  hope 
it  gives  him,  —  the  countenance  of  Divine  compassion 
it  shows  to  him.  Ask  him,  further,  how  it  bears  on 
the  world  in  general,  and  he  will  acknowledge  perhaps 
enough  to  make  him  cherish  his  private  hope  more 
preciously  in  contrast,  or  dread  to  quit  his  hold  on  it. 
But  he  will  not  bring  that  part  of  it  into  a  definite  propo- 
sition ;  and  it  is  only  with  reluctance  that  he  admits  it 
at  all.  Or,  with  still  more  creditable  inconsistency,  he 
tacitly  assumes  that  such  is  the  inevitable  condition  of 
things  naturally  ;  and  considers  that  the  creed,  which  in 
fact  is  the  only  ground  for  believing  it,  is  instead  the  only 
way  of  escaping  it. 

And,  finally,  this  point  of  personal  religious  faith  is  the 
only  thing  which  could  have  made  it  possible  for  the 
doctrine  to  be  so  long  received  and  cherished.  In  what- 
ever way  we  take  it,  when  looked  at  narrowly,  it  con- 
ducts us  to  the  same  result,  as  we  have  seen.  And  that 
result  is  perfect  faith  in  the  love  of  God,  as  prevailing 
over  every  degree  of  sin.  Whatever  is  added  to  this  on 
God's  part  is  a  barbarous  and  obscure  statement  of 
metaphysics,  confounding  and  bewildering  our  whole  idea 


THE   VICARIOUS   ATONEMENT.  Ill 

of  the  Divine  government.  Whatever  can  be  added  to 
it  on  man's  part  is  that  order  of  motives,  of  moral 
appeal,  which  should  direct  the  spiritual  discipline  and 
heavenward  aspiration  of  the  soul.  And,  as  none  of 
God's  works  is  made  in  vain,  and  no  development  of 
man's  religious  thought  without  its  use,  I  suppose  that, 
even  in  the  crude  and  imperfect  forms  under  which  the 
Christian  doctrine  of  reconciliation  has  been  held,  it  has 
served  a  most  important  purpose  in  educating  the  con- 
science and  the  mind  of  men.  I  do  not  think  the 
appeals  and  arguments  by  which  the  theories  have  been 
sustained  were  without  their  use.  That  would  be  to 
discredit  too  much  the  providential  training  man's  relig- 
ious thought  has  undergone. 

But  I  think  these  appeals  and  arguments  have  served 
their  turn,  and  had  better  be  dispensed  with.  The  moral 
and  intellectual  difficulties  with  which  they  are  found 
to  be  inextricablv  involved  are  forced  more  and  more 
strongly  upon  our  notice.  But  one  invaluable  thing  we 
owe  in  great  measure  even  to  this  harsh  and  imperfect 
statement  of  the  truth.  Conviction  of  sin  and  confi- 
dence of  access  to  God  are  certainly  the  characteristics, 
the  two  coordinate  features,  by  which  the  religious  life  of 
Christendom  has  been  distinguished  from  all  other  forms 
of  human  development.  In  whatever  degree  these  have 
been  due  to  the  earnest  enforcement  of  those  creeds 
which  have  sought  to  account  for  the  expiation  of  man's 
guilt  through  the  sufferings  of  Christ,  we  owe  them 
many  thanks.  But  while  we  retain  the  spiritual  truth, 
we  need  not  adhere  to  the  baseless,  illogical,  unscrip- 
tural  error  which  may  happen  to  be  connected  with  it. 
The  ultimate  ground  of  trust,  at  any  rate,  is  the  free 
mercy  of  God,  as  illustrated  in  the  life  and  word  and 


112  THE    VICARIOUS    ATONEMENT. 

death  of  Christ.  To  make  our  theory  perfect,  we  have 
only  to  transfer  this  glorious  faith,  beyond  its  present 
limits,  to  the  whole  circle  of  the  Divine  government, 
and  adore  the  God  of  love  in  "  all  his  w^orks,  in  all 
places  of  his  dominion,"  , 


DISCOUESE  yi. 


DEPRAVITY  OF  HUMAN  NATURE. 

I  KNOW  THAT  IN  ME  (THAT  IS,  IN  MY  FLESh)  DWELLETH  NO 
GOOD  THING  :  FOR  TO  WILL  IS  PRESENT  WITH  ME,  BUT  HOW  TO 
PERFORM  THAT  WHICH  IS  GOOD  I  FIND  NOT.  FOR  THE  GOOD 
THAT    I  WOULD    I    DO    NOT  ;    BUT    THE    EVIL  WHICH   I    WOULD    NOT, 

THAT  I  DO. — Romans  vii.  18,  19. 

In  the  three  preceding  Discourses,  I  have  considered 
the  three  cardinal  doctrines  of  Orthodoxy,  as  applying 
to  the  nature  and  purposes  of  God, — those  which  be- 
long strictly  (by  the  old  scholastic  division)  to  the  de- 
partment of  Theology,  or  the  religious  system  on  its 
Divine  side.  These  are  the  Trinity,  the  Deity  of 
Christ,  and  the  Vicarious  Atonement.  In  the  three  to 
follow,  I  am  to  consider  it  on  its  human  side,  or  the 
direct  bearing  of  the  Divine  economy  on  the  condition, 
the  destiny,  and  the  culture  of  mankind.  The  topics 
which  will  come  accordingly  in  review  will  be  Human 
Nature,  Retribution,  and  the  Scriptures.  These  will 
complete  the  circle  of  the  dogmatic  or  controversial 
points  which  we  are  passing  in  review. 

As  we  easily  see,  our  view  of  human  nature  must 
serve  as  the  basis  and  point  of  departure  for  all  our  re- 
10* 


114  DEPRAVITY    OF    HUMAN    NATURE. 

ligious  theory.     If  we  think  of  Christianity  in  its  bear- 
ing on  the  human  race  in  general,  its  method  of  opera- 
tion, its  progress,  history,  and  present  state,  of  course 
the  view  we  presuppose  of  man's  moral  condition  makes 
the  element  by  which  we  determine  all  the  rest.     Or  if 
we  think  of  it  as  a  personal  matter,  as  applying  to  our 
own  condition,  and  appealing  to   our   own   conscience, 
then  our  view  of  human  nature  as  a  whole  is  reflected 
as  it  were  in  ourselves  ;  our  conscious  or  unconscious 
philosophy,  our  dogmatic  belief  one  or  the  other  way, 
is  what  determines  the  meaning  and  force  and  direction 
of  all  our  views  of  duty,  and  of  any  moral  appeal.      The 
alternative  between   the   two   systems  is   simply  stated. 
If  man  is  in  a  lost,  rebellious,  and  ruined  state,  —  if  you 
and  I  by  nature  share  in  the  disaster  and  doom  of  the 
Fall,  from  which  no  natural  strength  or  wisdom  could,  in 
the  ordinary  course  of  Providence,    deliver  us,  —  then 
salvation  is  a  rescue,  a  ransom  on  given  conditions,  the 
bringing  of  all  or  a  chosen  number  out  of  infinite  misery 
and    darkness  into  a   degree   of  peace  and   a  hope   of 
glory  which,  in  their  natural  estate,   there  was  not  the 
smallest  reason  to   anticipate  ;  and   no  terms  could   be 
judged  strange  or  unreasonable  by  which  such  redemp- 
tion  might  be  brought   about.     If,  on   the  other  hand, 
man's  condition  is  one  of  sin,   indeed,   and  misery,   of 
weakness  and  imperfection,  yet  not  of  curse  or  natural 
enmity  towards  God,  then  the  true  meaning  of  salvation 
is  not  so  much  rescue  from  a  specific  calamity  as  spirit- 
ual health  and  groicth  ;  religion  is  a  method  of  culture, 
by  means  of  whatever  nourishes  the  soul  in  goodness  ; 
and  all  the  discipline  and  experience  of  life,  when  rightly 
used,  is  part  of  the  Divinely  appointed  training  of  the 
immortal  spirit. 


DEPRAVITY    OF    HUMAN    NATURE.  115 

These  two  ways  of  regarding  the  condition  of  man, 
and  the  consequent  work  and  meaning  of  religion,  are 
radically  different  and  hostile,  and  are  the  most  charac- 
teristic and  central  point  of  difference  between  the  op- 
posing systems.  And  though  the  difference  be  one  of 
philosophy  full  as  much  as  of  theology,  though  it  apply 
full  as  much  to  our  entire  view  of  life  as  to  our  in- 
terpretation of  the  Christian  records,  yet  it  serves  to 
mark  and  separate  the  two  schools  of  religious  thinking 
no  less  than  our  various  understanding  of  the  Trinity,  or 
the  sacrifice  of  Christ.  The  doctrine  of  man's  native 
and  total  depravity,  in  the  sense  in  which  I  take  it,  was 
set  forth  somewhat  fully  in  the  first  of  these  Discourses, 
where  I  assumed  it  as  the  point  of  departure  for  the  re- 
ligious system  of  Orthodoxy.  I  need  not  repeat  what 
was  said  then,  but  proceed  rather  to  those  questions  of 
character,  evidence,  and  result,  which  belong  more  prop- 
erly to  the  argument  I  have  now  in  hand. 

I  have  just  said  that  our  view  of  human  nature  in  gen- 
eral is  very  much  a  transcript,  or  amplification,  or  (in 
some  cases)  an  exaggerated  contrast,  of  the  view  con- 
science and  reason  give  us  as  to  our  own  moral  state. 
Hence  it  is  exposed  to  all  the  extravagance,  to  all 
the  bigotry,  and  narrowness,  and  morbid  eccentricities, 
which,  according  to  health,  temperament,  good  or  ill 
success  in  life,  and  various  other  causes,  may  affect  our 
moral  judgment  of  ourselves.  Our  judgment  of  man- 
kind is  a  species  of  egotism.  Every  man  looks  on  the 
world  in  a  light  colored  by  the  medium  it  must  pass 
through  before  it  strikes  his  eye.  What  we  see  is  al- 
ways affected  more  or  less  by  what  we  are.  The  judg- 
ment of  the  character  and  condition  of  the  world, 
among  religious  men,  makes  no  exception  to  this  rule. 


116  DEPRAVITY  OF  HUMAN  NATURE. 

According  to  the  type  and  character  of  their  faith  will 
they  take  a  sanguine  or  gloomy  view  of  things.  A  hap- 
py trust  in  God,  or  anaiable  feeling  towards  nien,  will^ 
incline  them  to  see  things  hopefully,  and  make  every 
possible  allowance  for  existing  evil.  Sensitiveness  of 
conscience  and  honest  self-reproach  will  make  them  use 
strong  words  in  speaking  of  impiety,  inhumanity,  and 
wrong  generally.  The  Bible  abounds  in  examples  of 
both  these  states  of  feeling.  The  cheerful  piety  of 
some  of  the  Hebrew  Psalms,  speaking  of  man  as  ''  a 
little  lower  than  the  angels,"  has  been  the  support  of  all 
encouraging  views  of  human  character  ;  while  the  lan- 
guage of  humble  penitence  or  of  honest  moral  indigna- 
tion has  been  made  the  evidence  of  doctrines  such  as 
this,  —  strange  for  their  extravagance,  and  horrible  for 
their  signification. 

I  think  this  is  a  fair  account,  in  general,  of  the  way  in 
which  dogmas  so  monstrous  and  incredible  as  this  of 
the  total  native  depravity  of  man  must  have  had  their 
rise.  It  is  held,  as  it  were,  from  a  vague  feeling  that  it 
must  be  true,  as  making  part  and  parcel  of  the  Bible. 
No  man  would  wish  beforehand  that  it  should  be  true. 
No  one  (except  a  cunning  priesthood  that  loved  it  for 
the  sake  of  the  spiritual  power  it  gave)  could  take  any 
satisfaction  in  urging  it  on  other  minds,  unless  it  were 
from  the  sincerest  conviction  that  it  was  perilous  not  to 
believe  and  feel  it.  All  our  natural  feelings  rise  up 
against  it,  as  indeed,  by  the  very  terms  of  it,  they  must. 
Its  very  signification  is,  that  natural  emotions  and  spon- 
taneously formed  opinions  are  necessarily  and  altogether 
wrong,  —  wrong,  of  course,  by  its  standard  of  right  and 
wrong.  No  man  would  wish  to  believe  that  a  curse, 
infinitely   more   tremendous  than  any   earthly    doom  of 


DEPRAVITY  OF  HUMAN  NATURE.  117 

wretchedness,  rested  on  him  from  his  birth  ;  or  that  his 
dear  child,  or  parent,  or  friend,  in  passing  from  this 
mortal  state,  has  almost  inevitably  fallen  into  inconceiv- 
able and  hopeless  torture.  By  the  very  terms  in  which 
such  a  doctrine  is  stated,  all  human  sympathies  and  nat- 
ural emotion  must  be  utterly  hostile  to  it.  And  at  times 
these  will  assert  their  irresistible  sway.  Natural  affec- 
tion triumphs  over  theological  prejudice,  even  in  the 
coldest  breast,  when  the  statement  is  brought  home  to 
it,  and  becomes  practical.  The  sternest  bigot  cannot 
see  his  infant  dying,  or  his  friend  unconscious  in  the 
last  hour,  but  his  previous  opinion  must  break  down  ; 
and  he  cannot  bring  himself  to  think  of  any  thing  but  a 
blessed  immortality  for  those  he  loves.  He  cannot 
watch  a  child's  careless  sport,  or  receive  its  winning 
caress,  and  persuade  himself  that  all  is  evil,  and  hateful 
to  the  eye  of  God.  He  may  say  so,  but  with  a  mental 
reservation  that  takes  away  the  force  of  what  he  says. 
A  blessed  inconsistency  makes  the  full  and  hearty  re- 
ception of  this  central  point  of  the  Calvinistic  creed 
for  ever  im.possible  to  the  mass  of  those  professing  it. 

And  so  I  need  not  harrow  up  your  feelings,  or  excite 
your  prejudice,  by  reciting  the  horrible  conclusions  that 
follow  close  upon  the  Orthodox  statement  of  man's  na- 
tive guilt.  I  need  not  lead  you  through  the  wearisome 
round  of  debate,  and  quibble,  and  inference,  respecting 
the  old  theological  questions  that  have  been  broached  ;  — 
whether  infants  are  inevitably  damned  if  they  die  unre- 
generate,  or  may  possibly  all  be  saved,  or,  as  this  would 
make  their  longer  life  a  peril  and  calamity,  may  not  take 
their  chance  as  elect  or  reprobate  ;  whether  baptism  is 
a  sufficient  safeguard,  and  by  whom  it  may  be  adminis- 
tered ;  whether  the  first  conscious  act  is  necessarily  a 


118  DEPRAVITY    OF    HUMAN    NATURE. 

sinful  one,  and  incurs  the  penalty  of  infinite  guilt ;  wheth- 
er heathen  men  before  the  time  of  Christ,  who  acted  up 
to  their  light,  might  possibly  be  saved  ;  or  whether  the 
innumerable  millions  of  human  beings,  who  are  falling 
off  by  thousands  in  a  day,  old  men  and  babes,  in  pagan 
or  Christian  lands,  are  certainly  (the  great  mass  of  them) 
lost  for  ever.  These  and  similar  questions,  only  hinting 
at  the  frightful  circle  of  ideas  that  men  have  been  famil- 
iarized and  hardened  to  in  their  theological  debates,  we 
may  leave  untouched.  In  dealing  with  a  doctrine  that 
implies  the  sternest  answer  to  all  of  them,  I  seem  to  be 
combating,  not  a  hearty  and  practical  conviction  of  men 
in  earnest,  but  only  the  ghost  or  shadow  of  what  was 
once  a  terrible  reality.  The  difficulty  seems,  not  so 
much  to  disprove  the  theory  as  to  account  for  it,  —  to 
explain  how  it  ever  came  to  exist  in  the  human  mind  at 
all.  Men  believe  in  practice,  now,  only  what  is  necessa- 
rily implied  in  their  general  system  of  religious  thought. 
The  remoter  consequences  are  forgotten,  or  kept  studi- 
ously out  of  sight  ;  and  a  moderate,  though  still  harmful, 
measure  of  belief  lurks  in  their  mind,  because  they  take 
it  for  granted,  rather  than  because  of  any  proof;  be- 
cause without  it  the  whole  theory  they  hold  to  would  be 
impossible  and  absurd,  rather  than  for  any  intrinsic  merit 
that  commends  it  to  their  minds.  The  statement  and 
the  refutation  may  be  alike  unsatisfactory  ;  yet,  as  really 
a  very  necessary  and  important  part  of  my  course,  I 
must  present  this  subject  in  the  best  and  most  tangible 
shape  I  can. 

Before  we  come  to  the  reasoning  employed  in  favor 
of  this  doctrine,  I  wish  it  may  be  distinctly  fixed  in  our 
minds   what,  precisely,  is  its  nature  and  meaning,   and 


DEPRAVITY    OF    HUMAN    NATURE.  119 

what  sort  of  evidence  it  is  which  we  may  expect  to  find. 
Having  done  this,  I  shall*-  next  consider  the  insufficiency 
of  the  evidence  with  the  erroneous  style  of  interpreta- 
tion on  which  it  rests  ;  and  finally,  the  evil  consequen- 
ces, intellectual  and  moral,  that  result  from  it. 

I.  The  question  is  not  about  the  amount  of  sin  or 
guilt  there  may  actually  be  in  the  world.  Those  who 
deny  native  depravity  have  often  been  accused  of  mak- 
ing too  light  of  the  fact  of  moral  evil,  —  of  dwelling  too 
much  on  the  bright  side  of  things,  and  winking  out  of 
sight  the  actual  wickedness  of  men,  for  the  sake  of  keep- 
ing a  fair  and  smooth  theory.  Perhaps  it  has  been  so 
sometimes,  —  a  natural  reaction  from  the  over-statements 
on  the  other  side.  If  human  nature  itself,  which  is  the 
w^ork  of  God,  is  pronounced  altogether  corrupt,  it  seemed 
no  more  than  proper  reverence  to  the  Author  of  our 
being  to  vindicate  his  work,  and  call  on  men  to  remem- 
ber the  glorious  capacity  of  their  nature,  even  at  the 
expense,  for  the  moment,  of  overlooking  the  actual  cor- 
ruption and  degradation  of  it  by  their  own  fault.  Still, 
they  have  never  knowingly  or  intentionally  confounded 
the  eternal  distinction  between  right  and  wrong,  holiness 
and  sin.  It  was  never  said  of  them  that  they  were  be- 
hind others  in  general  practice  of  virtue,  and  they  have 
certainly  shown  their  full  share  of  zeal  in  opposing  vice 
and  error,  —  only,  vice  and  error  when  they  saw  them  in 
a  distinct  and  palpable  shape.  I  believe  that  more  hu- 
mane legislation  and  actual  reforms  of  social  evils  have 
had  their  root  and  strength  in  that  class  of  thinkers,  in 
proportion  to  their  numbers,  than  in  any  ten  others  put 
together. 

The  real  difference  is  not  in  the  feeling  with  which  we 
regard  the  fact  of  guilt,  but  in  the  point  of  view  from 


120  DEPRAVITY    OF    HUMAN    NATURE. 

which  we  regard  it.  The  point  of  the  Orthodox  doc- 
trine on  the  subject  is,  not  that  mankind  is  generally 
wicked  and  corrupt,  but  that  it  is  altogether  and  abso- 
lutely so,  and  cannot,  in  the  nature  of  things,  except  by 
miracle,  be  otherwise.  This  is  the  position  which  its 
advocates  have  chosen.  They  see  the  subject  from  the 
point  of  view  of  theological  opinion,  not  from  that  of  the 
natural  reason  and  conscience  ;  the  guilt  they  speak  of 
is  not  men's  actual  or  apparent  guilt,  but  their  theological 
or  constructive  guilt.  By  the  very  terms  of  the  theory, 
our  natural  sentiments  of  right  and  wrong  cannot  be 
trusted.  In  fact,  where  all  is  on  one  dead  level  of  sin, 
there  can  be  no  real  difference  of  right  and  wrong.  The 
most  amiable  feeling,  the  most  heroic  self-devotion,  the 
purest  love  of  God,  and  man,  and  truth,  or  what  seems 
so  in  the  eye  of  reason  and  conscience,  is  just  as  likely 
to  be  deceitful,  corrupt,  and  hateful  in  the  eye  of  God, 
as  the  most  atrocious  crime.  There  is  no  room  left 
for  subordinate  moral  distinctions.*  All  are  lost  and 
swallowed  up  in  the  one  gulf  of  original  depravity.  All 
differences  of  faithful  and  treacherous,  kind  and  cruel, 
generous  and  malignant,  are  melted  down  in  that  one 
stern  judgment,  pronounced  without  reservation  or  abate- 
ment on  the  entire  human  race,  — that  "  the  wickedness 
of  man  is  great  in  the  earth,  and  that  every  imagination 
of  the  thoughts  of  his  heart  is  only  evil  continually.'^^ 
To  every  age,  to  every  nation,  to  every  man,  is  applied 
without  qualification  that  terrible  description  of  the  wick- 
edness of  the  w^orld  before  the  flood. 

Of  course,  evidence  might  be   expected   as  peculiar 
and  as  strong  as  the '  assertion   is   overwhelming.     One 

*  S^e  post,  page  130.. 


DEPRAVITY  OF  HUMAN  NATURE.  121 

would  say,  that  on  notliing  less  than  proof  positive  and 
unequivocal,  —  demonstration  outweighing  every  doubt, 
crushing  every  scruple,  superseding  every  other  process 
of  moral  argument  or  experience,  —  could  he  receive  such 
a  declaration  as  this  for  true.  And  we  cannot  have  re- 
course to  any  of  the  ordinary  ways  of  proving  any  other 
class  of  facts.  By  the  very  terms  of  the  theory,  we 
are  warned  that  our  moral  sense  is  corrupt,  our  reason 
deceitful,  all  our  faculties  blinded  and  perverted  by  sin. 
So  we  cannot  trust  any  natural  mode  of  proof ;  for  once 
to  listen  to  reason  on  such  a  subject  would  be  to  begin 
by  renouncing  the  theory  in  order  to  prove  it,  —  to  con- 
fide, for  argument's  sake,  in  the  integrity  of  those  very 
powers  and  faculties  which  we  are  assured  beforehand 
are  altogether  deceitful  and  depraved.  The  common 
sense  of  men  is  utterly  at  fault,  and  condemned  before  a 
hearing.  And  our  moral  sense,  our  natural  discrimina- 
tion between  right  and  wrong,  will  not  serve  us  any  bet- 
ter. The  obscure  consciousness  of  guilt,  or  personal 
unworthiness,  which  most  men  acknowledge,  which  all 
earnest  men  deplore,  must  pass  for  nothing,  and  cannot 
be  introduced  as  proof.  How  should  conscience  be 
a  safer  guide  than  sense  and  passion,  if  the  whole  nature 
is  depraved  ?  If  we  may  trust  one  sentiment,  one  fac- 
ulty, why  not  all,  —  or  the  nature  we  are  born  to  as  a 
whole  ?  The  theory  itself,  you  will  observe,  drives  us 
from  every  other  possible  method  of  proof  than  the  ex- 
traneous evidence  of  theological  doctrine.  It  cannot 
fairly  and  honestly  appeal  to  any  thing  in  the  range  of 
human  philosophy  or  ordinary  experience,  because  it 
first  deprives  us  of  the  test  to  judge  them  by.  And  if 
it  should,  its  case  is  gone  ;  for,  first,  it  deserts  itself,  by 
appealing  to  a  tribunal  forejudged  to  be  worthless,  and 
11 


122  DEPRAVITY    OF    HUMAN    NATURE. 

next,  the  answer  it  gets  from  that  tribunal  is  not  such  as 
it  wants.  The  statement  of  reason  is  certainly  very  dif- 
ferent from  that  of  dogmatic  theology.  If  there  are 
germs  of  evil  in  man  by  nature,  so  there  are  also  germs 
of  good  ;  for  reason  and  conscience  assure  us  of  one 
full  as  much  as  of  the  other.  He  is  no  more  pure  tiger 
in  innate  capacity  and  tendency  than  he  is  pure  angel. 
Nero  was  no  more  a  man  than  Socrates  or  Howard. 
And  once  granting  the  native  capacity  for  spiritual  life 
and  culture,  without  which  there  is  no  possibility  of  any 
good  on  any  theory,  there  seems  very  little  left  to  con- 
tend about,  but  an  empty  form  of  words.  So  much  for 
the  answer  of  reason. 

If,  then,  the  theory  is  true,  we  can  know  it  by  no 
other  method  or  faculty  our  Creator  has  given  us,  but 
only  in  the  terms  of  a  dogmatic  statement.  Its  evidence 
is  not  rational  or  moral,  but  theological.  If  we  believe 
it,  it  is  either  from  the  necessity  of  a  system  which  re- 
quires it,  and  which  we  accept  as  proved  on  other 
grounds  ;  or  else  from  the  most  cogent,  convincing,- 
overwhelming  evidence  of  inspiration.  The  Bible  ar- 
gument, then,  ought  certainly  to  be  secure  and  impreg- 
nable. If  we  detect  any  weakness  in  it,  any  flaw,  any 
thing  detracting  from  absolute  and  unanswerable  proof, 
we  shall  be  forced  to  set  it  aside.  Such  a  doctrine 
could  be  accepted  on  nothing  less  than  such  a  demon- 
stration. Whether  the  other  parts  of  the  Orthodox  the- 
ory are  sufficient  to  bear  this  out,  we  may  judge  from 
the  argument  touching  them  severally,  or  as  a  whole. 
At  present  I  am  dealing  only  with  this  single  one,  and 
the  evidence  alleged  to  sustain  it.  As  I  have  said,  this 
evidence  must  not  be  sought  anywhere  but  in  the  Bible. 
And  my  purpose  now  is  to  examine  what  is  the  nature 
of  this  evidence,  and  what  is  its  just  interpretation. 


DEPRAVITY    OF    HUMAN    NATURE.  123 

II.   In   Studying   the   language  of  the   Bible,   or  any 
part  of  it,  we  certainly   ought  to  consider  the  purpose 
for  which  it  was  written,  and  judge  its  meaning  by  that. 
Considering,  then,  that  a  very  large  part  of  the  Bible  is 
in  the  form  of  very  earnest  moral   appeal,   or   else   of 
personal  moral  conviction  and  penitence,  —  that  it  almost 
always  takes  the  point  of  view  of  conscience,  made  sen- 
sitive, too,  by  the  most  exalted  standard  of  perfect  right, 
and  the  highest  activity  of  the  religious  sentiment,  —  we 
may  naturally  expect  to  find  very  strong  language  used 
in  reference  to  human  guilt,  whatever  the  particular  the- 
ory which  it  intends  to  teach.      Such  confessions  or  ap- 
peals depend  on  temperament,  or  the  present  state   of 
mind,  far  more  than  on  any  theological  opinion.     Moral 
reformers,  for  example,  have  in  general  the  most  com- 
placent view  of  all  men  as  to  the  native  excellence  and 
powers  of  mankind  ;  and  yet  their  very  trade  is  to  deal 
in  the  most  bitter  and  sweeping  rebukes  of  wrong.     In 
sternness   of  denunciation,   they   often   outdo   any    thing 
that  can  be  matched  against  them  from  the  Bible.     That 
is  the  very  nature  of  the  human  mind,  when  the  con- 
science  is  in  active  exercise  in   some  single  direction. 

Now  the  Bible  is  by  far  the  most  natural  and  unso- 
phisticated, in  its  tone  of  sentiment,  of  all  books  dealing 
with  right  and  wrong,  duty  and  sin  ;  and  its  language,  in 
respect  to  human  guilt,  is  certainly  very  strong.  But 
there  is  no  cold-blooded  and  argumentative  statement  of 
man's  depravity  in  the  manner  of  theologians.  Vehe- 
ment and  fiery,  desponding,  remorseful,  reproachful,  it 
may  be  by  turns  ;  but  to  use  its  scattered  fragments  to 
build  a  dogmatic  theory  of  guilt  is  utterly  to  falsify  its 
meaning.  It  will  not  bear  such  handling.  To  neglect 
the  sentiment  and  retain  the  form,  to  forget  the  circum- 


124  DEPRAVITY  OF  HUMAN  NATURE. 

Stances  while  we  insist  on  the  verbal  statement,  is  as 
if  we  should  carry  the  tone  and  manner  of  tragedy  into 
a  mathematical  demonstration,  or  take  for  Hteral  descrip- 
tion all  the  splendid  and  diversified  imagery  by  which 
the  Scriptures  set  forth  the  power  and  glory  of  Almighty 
God. 

Bat  what  is  the  actual  and  positive  amount  of  proof 
that  can  be  brought  by  constraint  from  the  Bible  pages 
to  sustain  the  argument  for  the  total  native  depravity  of 
man  ?  Six  or  eight  passages  in  all  are  the  only  ones 
that  would  be  relied  on  with  any  certainty  ;  and  the 
force  of  these  will  disappear  at  once,  if  we  keep  in 
mind  the  caution  in  interpreting  which  I  have  just  been 
laboring  to  impress.  I  will  take  them  up  in  order,  but 
very  briefly,  and  rather  to  show  the  outline  than  to  discuss 
them  with  any  fulness.  And  I  cannot  take  the  feebler 
ones;  which  may  be  used  as  illustration,  but  only  the 
stronger  ones,  which  are  cited  as  proof.  My  object  is 
not  now  to  give  a  particular  exposition  of  each,  which 
would  be  mere  repetition  and  weariness,  but  to  show 
how  they  should  be  classified  to  make  their  application 
plain.  They  may  be  ranged  in  the  three  divisions  which 
follow. 

1.  Those  which  speak  of  hereditary  evil.  It  is  com- 
monly supposed,  or  taken  for  granted,  that  the  narrative 
of  Adam's  fall  contains  the  declaration  that  it  entailed 
the  corruption  of  nature  and  the  ruin  of  mankind.  So 
it  does  in  Milton  ;  but  so  it  does  not  in  Genesis.  A 
glance  at  the  passage  will  show  that  the  most  that  can 
be  made  from  it  is  the  sentence  to  labor,  disease,  and 
liability  to  death.  Not  a  syllable  is  breathed  of  any 
thing  further  than  this,  even  where  Paul  comments  on 
it  afterwards,  and  says  (Rom.  v.  17)  that  "  by  one  man 


DEPRAVITY    OF    HUMAN    NATURE.  125 

sin  entered  into  the  world,  and  death  by  sin."  Nobody- 
doubts  that  Adam  sinned,  and  that  all  grown  men  since 
have  sinned.  That  is  not  the  point  at  issue.  Neither 
does  any  one  acquainted  with  physiology  doubt  that  moral 
tendencies  are  inherited  by  some  organic  law  of  descent  ; 
so  that  a  bad  man's  child  comes  into  life  at  a  disadvan- 
tage, so  to  speak,  and  will  not  so  easily  reach  so  high  a 
degree  of  culture  as  another.  These  are  facts  of  obser- 
vation, not  dogmas  of  a  creed.  And  these  are  all  that, 
by  the  most  strained  construction,  can  be  fairly  made  out 
from  any  thing  said  in  the  Bible  of  Adam's  sin.  The 
disadvantage  I  spoke  of  is  not  guilt  ;  it  is  mere  misfor- 
tune, which  is  often  made  up  in  a  hundred  ways,  —  by 
some  kind  providence,  —  by  sentiments  of  pity  and  char- 
ity in  other  men  towards  the  spoiled  child  of  circum- 
stance. iV  terrible  misfortune  it  often  is,  —  a  terrible 
warning  always  to  a  parent's  sin,  —  but  one  which  ift  the 
child  a  wise  man  will  only  pity,  not  condemn  ;  and 
"  shall  mortal  man  be  more  just  than  God  ?  "  Try  as 
you  will,  you  cannot  make  any  thing  more  than  this  from 
what  the  Scripture  says  of  our  hereditary  guilt. 

2. 'The  next  class  is  strong  general  descriptions  of  the 
moral  condition  of  the  world,  or  a  particular  nation,  at 
some  particular  time.  The  first  is  that  most  emphatic 
one  I  quoted  a  little  back,  of  the  time  before  the  flood, 
the  lewd  and  insolent  temper  of  which  time  was,  in  the 
WTiter's  view,  the  reason  and  justification  of  that  stupen- 
dous judgment.  A  similar  description,  more  pathetically 
detailed,  is  given  of  Sodom  and  Gomorrah.  In  the 
same  list  we  must  include  the  striking  objurgations  of  the 
Jewish  prophets,  whose  point  of  appeal  was  made  in  be- 
wailing or  reproaching  the  idolatry  and  corruption  of  the 
declining  Jewish  state;  as  where  Isaiah  says  (i.  4), 
11* 


126  DEPRAVITY  OF  HUMAN  NATURE. 

''  Ah  sinful  nation,  a  people  laden  with  iniquity";  or 
where  Jeremiah  says,  in  his  sombre  way  (xvii.  9),  "  The 
heart  is  deceitful  above  all  things,  and  desperately  wick- 
ed :  who  can  know  it?"'  But  incomparably  the  most 
striking  passages  of  this  sort,  next  after  our  Saviour's 
denunciations  of  the  hypocrites  of  his  day,  are  those 
in  which  the  Apostle  Paul  paints  the  corruption  of  the 
pagan  world,  to  make  more  evident  the  moral  need  of 
such  a  faith  as  Christianity.  These  passages,  chiefly  in 
the  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  are  too  well  known  to  need 
repetition  here.  It  is  from  him  that  such  expressions  as 
"  there  is  none  righteous,"  "  children  of  wrath,"  "  the 
understanding  darkened, "  "  the  Scripture  hath  con- 
cluded all  under  sin,"  are  chiefly  taken  ;  sufficiently  em- 
phatic and  true  as  suiting  his  particular  object  of  passion- 
ate remonstrance  or  appeal,  but  too  high-wrought  and 
sweeping  to  stand  for  a  deliberate  judgment  or  descrip- 
tion of  human  nature  as  such,  lohich  they  never  assume  to 
be.  And  as  to  all  these,  I  think  it  must  be  evident 
enough  that  it  would  be  unauthorized  and  unfair  to  insist 
on  the  literal  rendering  of  every  high-toned  description  or 
vehement  rebuke,  as  containing  a  deliberate,  positive, 
unanswerable  matter  of  fact,  equally  true  for  all  time,  for 
every  place,  and  for  each  particular  man.  For  such  a 
rendering  there  is  no  warrant  in  the  terms  of  Scripture, 
—  no  justification  in  reason  or  truth. 

3.  The  remaining  class  consists  of  passages  express- 
ing personal  emotion,  of  humility  or  contrition,  with  a 
few  instances  of  gloomy  moralizing.  Thus  David,  in  his 
penitential  psalm  (doubtless  sincere),  after  his  base  and 
atrocious  conduct  towards  Uriah,  when  his  conscience 
was  roused  and  stung  by  his  child's  death  and  Nathan's 
bold  rebuke,  says  (Ps.  li.  5),  "  I  was  shapen  In  iniquity. 


DErRAVITY  OF  HUMAN  NATURE.  127 

and  In  sin  did  my  mother  conceive  me  ";  —  bitterly  true 
as  the  hmguage  of  remorse  and  self-contempt,  but  mon- 
strous  as  a  charge    to    be    laid  indiscriminately  at    the 
door  of  every  man.      So  the  Preacher  (supposed  to  be 
the  sensual   and  idolatrous  Solomon,  who  had  so  much 
more  head-wisdom  and  so  much  less  heart-wisdom  than 
his  father)  says  (Eccl.  ix.  3),  "  The  heart  of  the  sons  of 
men  is  full  of  evil,  and  madness  is  in  their  heart,"  —  seen 
chiefly  in  their  weary  chase  for  pleasure,  and  ambition 
that  never  fills  the  measure  of  its  craving.     Here,  again, 
the  words  of  Paul  are  more  deep  and  earnest  than  any 
other,   in  the  expression   or   interpretation   of  this  sen- 
timent.    Especially  in  the  chapter  from  which  my  text  is 
taken,  he  speaks  profoundly  of  the  great  moral  conflict 
that  goes  on  in  the  bosom  of  every  earnest  man,  —  the 
struggle    from    doubt    and    darkness    towards   light    and 
peace.      ''  I  well  know,"  he  says,  "  that  in  me,  that  is, 
in  my  flesh,  dwelleth  no  good  thing  :  for  to  will  is  pres- 
ent with  me,  but  how  to  perform  the  good  which  I  would 
I  find  not."     Here  is  a  statement  which  every  man  of 
deep  moral  experience  will  readily  accept.     No  one  sup- 
poses that  in  the  flesh,  that  is,  the  natural  propensities 
and  desires,  there  is  any  moral  merit,  innocent  or  amia- 
ble as  they  may  be  in  some  of  their  forms.     And   every 
one  knows,  too,  that  it  is  a  most  high  and  difficult  part  of 
duty  to  contend  with  the  excess  or  perversion  of  these 
very  propensities  and  desires.      They  do,  indeed,  make 
virtue  difficult  ;   but  for  that  very  reason  they   make  it 
possible.     For  virtue  consists  in  moral  effort,  —  in  con- 
tending with  a  moral  obstacle.     And  so  far  from  being 
intrinsically  depraved  and  corrupt,  our  natural  constitu- 
tion is  only  the  point  of  departure,  and  the  God-given 
condition,  from  which  the  spiritual   life    must  proceed. 


128  DEPRAVITY    OF    HUMAN    JSATUKE. 

The  strength  of  a  man's  natural  passions  is  always  men- 
tioned as  an  extenuation  of  his  faults,  or  an  enhancing  of 
his  virtue,  —  never  as  intrinsically  a  matter  of  blame. 
The  reality  of  the  moral  struggle,  its  necessity,  not  the 
absolute  depravity  of  what  causes  it,  is  all  that  we  can 
find  contained  in  this  well-known  chapter.  It  is  doubt- 
less the  story,  rapidly  told,  of  Paul's  own  inward  his- 
tory, representing,  as  Neander  says,  the  class  of  sincere 
Pharisees.  The  blind  groping  and  conflict  with  his  own 
thoughts  and  doubts  and  temptations  of  the  flesh  are  what 
he  shared  with  all  serious  men  of  an  imperfect  faith, 
while  longing  for  the  pure  and  true  ;  the  peace  he  found 
in  conviction  is  the  result  that  is  sure  to  crown  the  faith- 
ful striving  of  the  soul,  in  the  light  and  blessing  of  spirit- 
ual truth.  Man's  moral  condition  is  powerfully  and  truly 
told  ;  but  it  is  one  not  of  abject  despair,  not  of  rebellious 
hate,  —  only  the  mortal  imperfection,  the  weary  and  pro- 
tracted struggle,  waiting  the  radiant  light  of  immortality. 
In  these  three  classes  may  be  ranged  all  the  evidence 
from  Scripture  which  has  ever  been  brought  to  sustain 
the  doctrine  of  man's  original  and  total  depravity.  The 
strongest  passages  I  have  already  quoted  ;  and,  once  re- 
garding them  in  their  natural  connection,  they  certainly 
do  not  seem  to  me  overstrained  representations  of  human 
sin,  —  certainly  very  far  from  strong,  or  explicit,  or  nu- 
merous enough,  even  on  the  strictest  theory  of  Scripture 
inspiration,  to  bear  out  such  a  doctrine  as  they  are  cited 
to  prove.  If  an  inspired  note  or  comment  were  affixed 
to  each  several  passage,  to  assure  us  that  it  was  equally 
asserted  of  all  men  everywhere,  and  universally  true  of 
every  grade  of  character,  unless  supernaturally  changed 
or  raised,  there  would  be  some  show  of  reason  for  it. 
It  would  then  be  only  essential  to  prove  the  inspiration 


DEPKAVITY    OF    HU3IAN    NATURE.  129 

of  that  comment.  As  it  is,  granting  the  very  highest 
degree  of  inspiration  to  the  Bible  as  we  find  it,  it  is 
totally  inadequate  to  meet  the  case.  The  evidence  fails 
here  ;  and  there  is  no  other  testimony  we  can  call  in  to 
make  it  good. 

III.  I  come  now  to  the  intrinsic  objections  to  the 
theory,  over  and  above  the  insufficiency  of  evidence. 
These  objections  are  partly  intellectual  and  partly  moral. 
Let  us  give  a  few  thoughts  to  each. 

I  have  before  spoken  somewhat  fully  of  the  contradic- 
tion into  which  we  fall  when  we  presuppose  man  to  be 
born  into  a  rebellious  or  ruined  state,  —  how  we  impli- 
cate the  Divine  character,  and  deny  either  his  power 
and  wisdom,  that  he  could  not  prevent,  or  his  mercy  and 
justice,  that  he  deliberately  inflicted,  so  frightful  a  catas- 
trophe upon  the  human  race.  And  in  the  present  Dis- 
course I  have  already  spoken  of  the  difficulty,  nay,  im- 
possibility, of  squaring  any  natural  sentiments  of  justice 
or  virtue,  of  right  and  wrong,  with  all  the  requisitions  of 
this  theory.  In  all  this,  I  have  taken  for  granted  its  ex- 
treme and  harshest  form,  neglecting  the  modifications 
which  common  sense  and  humanity  have  by  degrees 
brought  into  it.  I  have  hitherto  considered  only  the 
stern  and  terrible  dogma,  as  it  was  produced  by  the  dark 
spirit  of  the  Middle- Age  theology  ;  that  which  is  repro- 
duced in  high-toned  Calvinism ;  that  which  has  been 
preached  popularly^in  the  churches  of  our  own  country, 
and  is  assumed  m  most  popular  religious  treatises  ;  that 
which  fearlessly  pronounces  the  entire  and  utter  corrup- 
tion of  the  natural  man,  and  asserts  that  no  one  who  has 
not  received  conversion  can  be  saved  from  eternal  woe. 
And  I  have  done  this,  because  it  seems  the  only  way  to 
treat  the  doctrine  fairly.      To  make  any  abatement  in  it 


130  DEPRAVITY  OF  HUMAN  NATURE. 

seems  to  me  virtually  to  abandon  it.  Those  who  main- 
tain it  in  general  terms,  without  being  willing  to  admit  its 
extreme  consequences,  .are  reduced  to  a  miserable  in- 
consistency. The  alternative  is  simply  between  accept- 
ing or  denying  it.  To  accept  it  is  to  accept  it  all,  with 
all  its  deficiency  of  proof,  and  all  its  mountain-load  of 
difficulties.  To  deny  it  is  to  desert  the  ground  of  Or- 
thodoxy, and  to  make  one's  whole  religious  system  pro- 
ceed upon  a  different  set  of  principles.  This  makes 
the  intellectual  difficulty  that  must  for  ever  lie  at  the 
bottom  of  such  a  scheme,  as  I  shall  now  proceed  to 
show. 

I  am  well  aware  that  the  advocates  of  the  doctrine  in 
name  shrink  from  the  application  I  have  given  it,  and 
even  protest  against  such  ©xtreme  interpretation,  as  a 
piece  of  folly  in  their  fellow-believers,  or  of  unfairness 
in  their  opponents.  They  studiously  avoid  pronouncing 
positively  on  the  doom  of  all  the  unregenerate  after 
death.  They  shudder  at  the  horrible  declarations  of 
old  Calvinistic  preachers,  that  hell  is  paved  with  infants' 
bones  ;  and  do  not  like  to  dwell  too  explicitly  on  the 
destination  of  heathen  nations  before  or  since  the  time 
of  Christ.  A  humanizing  process  has  been  going  on, 
and  denunciations  of  the  world's  wickedness  take  more 
a  moral  and  less  a  theological  tone.  Sin  is  deplored 
more  as  a  fact,  and  dwelt  on  less  as  an  inexpiable  rebel- 
lion and  curse.  And  the  statements  of  the  more  en- 
lightened defenders  of  the  dogma  are  such  as  we  should 
hardly  refuse  to  accept  ourselves.  At  most,  we  should 
consider  them  rather  exaggerated  descriptions  of  exist- 
ing evil,  —  too  unqualified,  but  in  the  main  true.  What 
we  complain  of  is,  that  they  should  adhere  to  the  dog- 
ma in  form,  which  they  virtually  give  up  in  fact. 


DEPRAVITY    OF    HUMAN    NATURE.  131 

Chalmers,  for  instance,  complains  of  the  exaggera- 
tions of  the  ultra  Orthodox,  and  allows  the  existence  of 
real  virtue,  disinterestedness,  moral  heroism,  and  pure 
love,  distinct  from  the  peculiar  fact  of  conversion  and 
regenerate  life,  — only  saying  that  in  such  a  case  duty  is 
not  referred  immediately  to  God,  which  may  or  may  not 
be  true,  according  to  the  circumstances  of  the  case. 
"  Whether  it  be,"  he  says,  "  the  kindliness  of  maternal 
affection,  or  the  unweariedness  of  filial  piety,  or  the 
earnestness  of  devoted  patriotism,  or  the  rigor  of  un- 
bending fidelity,  or  any  other  of  the  recorded  virtues 
which  shed  a  glory  over  the  remembrance  of  Greece  and 

of  Rome,  — we  fully  concede that  they  one  and 

all  of  them  were  sometimes  exemplified  in  those  days  of 
heathenism  ;  and  that,  out  of  the  materials  of  a  period, 
crowded  as  it  was  with  moral  abominations,  there  may 
also  be  gathered  things  which  are  pure,  and  lovely,  and 
just,  and  true,  and  honest,  and  of  good  report."  And 
in  this,  I  presume,  he  only  makes  the  concession  and 
presents  the  modification  of  the  Orthodox  dogma  which 
would  be  very  widely  accepted  among  its  advocates. 
But  when  such  allowances  as  these  are  made,  we  put 
the  following  question  :  —  Do  you  consider  these  natu- 
ral distinctions  of  right  and  wrong  as  real  or  as  delu- 
sive ?  If  they  are  delusive,  then  they  are  the  worst, 
most  fatal  evidence  of  depravity,  —  and  it  is  the  grossest 
mockery  to  call  them  by  the  name  of  good  at  all.  If 
they  are  real,  then  they  must  be  real  in  the  eye  of  God 
as  well  as  ours  ;  and  we  cannot  suppose  he  would  judge 
them  more  harshly  and  scrupulously  than  we.  Then 
there  is  the  real  distinction  of  right  and  wrong,  aside 
from  any  theological  category  ;  and  a  just  God  will  re- 
ward the  right  and  punish  the  wrong,  irrespective  of  any 


132  DEPRAVITY    OF    HUMAN    NATURE. 

such  criterion.  And  if  we  have  ah-eady  a  basis  of 
moral  judgment,  irrespective  of  the  supernatural  work 
of  grace,  it  follows  inevitably  that  grace  is  only  to  com- 
plete and  perfect  the  work  which  nature  has  already  be- 
gun, —  that  is,  which  is  begun,  not  in  the  scornful,  im- 
pious, passionate  nature  of  a  bad  man,  but  in  the  sincere 
effort,  the  love  of  hoHness  and  truth,  the  upright  and 
conscientious  nature,  of  a  good  man.  And  in  this  we 
have  stated,  in  so  many  words,  the  whole  theory  of  lib- 
eral Christianity. 

Thus  it  is  in  vain  to  modify  the  excessive  harshness 
of  the  dogma,  and  plead  for  its  milder  form.  The  least 
concession  yields  the  entire  ground.  The  smallest 
abatement  or  reservation  is  fatal  to  its  intrinsic  and  es- 
sential meaning.  And  no  departure  can  be  made  from 
the  downright  and  sweeping  assertions  of  the  old-school 
Orthodox,  who  confound  on  purpose  all  moral  distinc- 
tions naturally  existing,  and  swallow  up  all  natural  right 
and  wrong,  hate  and  love,  in  one  horrid  gulf  of  total 
depravity,  without  changing  wholly  the  dogmatic  force 
of  the  theory,  and  coming  down  to  a  simple  exaggera- 
tion, more  or  less  highly  colored,  of  the  actually  exist- 
ing evil  in  the  world.  And  this,  as  I  have  said,  is  by 
no  means  a  point  of  controversy.  It  depends  wholly  on 
the  keenness  of  one's  moral  sense,  or  the  breadth  of  his 
observation,  not  on  the  exigencies  of  his  particular  re- 
ligious creed.  The  alternative  involves  one's  whole 
conception  of  the  Christian  religion. 

I  might  dwell  on  other  ethical  absurdities  that  result 
from  this  doctrine.  Thus,  for  argument's  sake,  a  man 
may  be  conceived  as  all  wrong, —  that  is,  by  some  stand- 
ard presupposed  in  the  general  sense  of  right  and  wrong  ; 
but  these  being  relative  terms,  and  each  involving  its  op 


DEPR^WITY    OF    HUMAN    NATURE.  133 

posite,  it  would  be  nonsense  to  deny  the  existence  of 
such  a  standard,  and  still  retain  the  terms.  In  other 
words,  as  right  and  wrong  are  moral  distinctions,  how 
can  they  exist  where  there  is  nothing  to  distinguish  ? 
Again,  there  is  no  one  to  whom  this  can  be  an  available 
category  of  wrong,  even  suppose  it  true  ;  for  to  the  un- 
regenerate  there  is  no  capacity  to  receive  its  truth,  and 
to  the  regenerate  it  of  course  no  longer  applies.  And 
again,  if  it  were  true,  it  defeats  itself,  and  renders  re- 
ligion impossible  except  by  miracle,  and  religious  appeal 
consequently  absurd, — useless  to  those  not  converted, 
and  needless  to  those  who  are. 

But  I  must  pass  all  these  by,  and  hasten  to  say  a  kw 
words  of  its  moral  effect.  And  here  we  must  always 
distinguish  sharply  between  the  religious  conviction  and 
the  dogmatic  opinion.  There  is  a  saving  efficacy  in  the 
religious  spirit,  which  seems  to  keep  the  temper  and 
character  from  the  harm  that  would  naturally  come  from 
a  false  point  of  faith.  Where  it  is  the  feeling  of  per- 
sonal contrition  that  quickens  the  sense  of  general  de- 
pravity, then  we  know  that  this  is  part  of  God's  way  of 
dealing  with  the  soul,  and  trust  the  experience  will  have 
its  perfect  work.  Or  where,  as  in  the  missionary,  it  is 
the  impulse  and  nerve  of  devoted  and  zealous  action  to 
save  some  from  a  lost  and  perishing  race,  then  the  re- 
ligious feeling  gives  an  actual  practical  trust  in  men's 
capacity,  and  patience  in  dealing  with  their  faults,  which 
may  well  put  to  shame  the  lagging  zeal  of  those  of  a 
more  complacent  faith. 

But  there  are  evils  on  the  other  side.      Among  those 
who  do  not  enter  into  that  spirit,  who  have  not  those  re- 
ligious sympathies  or  that  healthy  tone  of  religious  life, 
the  sweeping  theological  declarations   of  the   depravity 
J2 


134  DEPRAVITY  OF  HUMAN  NATURE. 

and  corruption  of  mankind  cannot  do  any  thing  but 
mischief.  They  do  not  have  the  effect  to  bring  such  to 
feel  or  acknowledge  their  own  ^deficiencies,  while  they 
do  succeed  in  blunting,  or  embittering,  or  rendering  sus- 
picious, their  feelings  towards  the  mass  of  their  fellow- 
men.  At  best,  it  is  a  strained  and  exaggerated  tone  of 
feeling,  which  cannot  be  kept  up  long  without  hurting 
the  health  of  mind  and  conscience.  The  terrible  view 
it  presents  of  God  and  providence,  if  sincerely  held, 
must  strike  heaven  and  earth  with  a  curse.  We  cannot 
entertain  the  right  sentiment  of  affectionate  reverence 
towards  a  Being  who  is  made  responsible  for  such  a  state 
of  things.  Our  selfish  fear  of  being  included  in  the  all 
but  universal  doom,  —  our  personal  and  selfish  sense  of 
gratitude,  when  we  think  we  are  saved  from  it  without 
any  merit  of  our  own,  to  the  exclusion  of  a  multitude  of 
others  at  least  equally  deserving  with  ourselves,  —  can- 
not be  the  right  foundation  for  a  healthful,  manly,  cheer- 
ful piety,  which  is  the  highest  condition  of  the  religious 
mind. 

And  if  we  at  all  take  in  the  force  and  meaning  of  the 
doctrine  we  profess,  we  must  be  appalled  and  overpow- 
ered with  continual  gloom,  to  think  of  that  dreadful 
curse,  resting  on  all  God's  creatures,  which  we  can  do 
nothing  at  all,  which  God  himself  will  do  compara- 
tively so  little,  to  remove.  The  thought  of  the  Cre- 
ator loses  one  of  the  chief  motives  it  should  include,  to 
move  our  love  and  reverence.  When  we  think  of  him 
as  the  highest  Good,  as  naturally  allied  to  and  infinitely 
expanding  in  his  nature  those  germs  of  good  which  we 
are  conscious  of  in  ourselves  or  one  another,  then  he  is 
the  God  our  soul  naturally  seeks  and  loves.  But  to 
blot  over   these  distinctions,  and   to   make  all  ideas  of 


DEPRAVITY    OF    HUMAN    NATURE.  135 

right  and  duty  depend  (as  they  must)  simply  on  the  ar- 
bitrary dictates  of  an  inexorable  and  capricious  will,  is 
to  abolish  the  only  distinction  conceivable  between  God 
and  Fate,  and  to  dry  up  the  most  abundant  fountain  of 
spiritual  life  in  the  soul. 

And  finally,  this  substituting  of  a  theological  or  con- 
structive responsibility  for  the  simple,  sound,  moral 
sense  of  an  enlightened  mind  is  to  strike  at  the  root  of 
all  natural  principles  of  right.  It  must  steel  the  heart 
against  human  sympathies,  beget  an  unconquerable  sus- 
picion, alienate  men  in  mutual  crimination  and  distrust  ; 
and  so  weaken  that  natural  bond  of  faith  in  men  generally, 
which  is  the  real  and  substantial  foundation  of  all  human 
duty  and  human  intercourse.  Even  if  it  has  not  this 
effect  in  its  sincere  advocates,  yet  by  their  defence  of  it 
they  put  a  formidable  weapon  into  the  hands  of  bad  men. 
It  is  telling  them  in  plain  terms  that  there  is  no  differ- 
ence between  them  and  other  men,  unless  supernaturally 
changed  ;  that  they  are  following  the  dictate  and  carry- 
ing out  the  plan  given  in  their  natural  constitution  ;  that 
nothing  but  a  selfish  fear,  which  is  as  bad  as  selfish  pas- 
sion, and  perhaps  meaner,  prevents  other  men  from  be- 
ing in  all  respects  as  bad  as  they.  It  cuts  off  all  natural 
ground  for  hope,  and  all  motive  for  moral  effort,  and 
challenges  their  scoffing  and  resentful  scrutiny,  to  ascer-' 
tain  whether  the  virtues  of  the  elect  and  regenerate  do, 
after  all,  differ  so  completely  from  what  is  called  deprav- 
ity and  corruption  in  the  non-elect.  And  if  there  should 
be  the  smallest  flaw  in  the  virtue  of  these  others,  —  any 
trace  of  inferior  and  selfish  motive,  any  relaxation  of  the 
purest  moral  principle,  —  what  would  follow  but  an  utter 
and  complete  denial  of  all  virtue  and  all  difference  of 
right  and  wrong  .'' 


136  DEPRAVITY    OF    HUMAN    NATURE. 

This  radical  moral  skepticism,  this  infidelity  of  the 
heart,  is  the  worst  moral  disease  that  can  befall  a 
man.  And  nothing  seems  more  certain  to  lead  men 
into  it,  than  first  to  assure  them  that  naturally  they  are 
capable  of  no  good  thing,  and  that  their  imperfection 
is  total  depravity  in  the  eye  of  God,  and  then  to 
offer  them  the  example  of  just  the  same  imperfec- 
tion, —  a  little  modified,  perhaps,  but  not  very  palpably 
different  in  kind,  —  as  the  only  substitute.  The  other 
extreme,  of  bigotry,  and  merciless  persecution  of  those 
whom  God  is  supposed  to  have  deserted  and  cursed, 
I  need  not  dwell  on  now.  At  the  present  day  we 
do  not  see  so  much  of  it,  or  in  its  coarser  forms. 
But  this  moral  skepticism,  which  knows  no  holiness 
in  duty,  no  loftiness  of  aim,  no  difference  of  right  and 
wrong,  —  this  is  warning  enough  against  a  system  which 
declares  beforehand  that  in  man's  natural  estate  there  is 
and  can  be  nothing  to  correspond  to  these  judgments  of 
our  moral  sense. 

Such  a  system  we  find  in  the  Orthodox  doctrine  of 
total  native  depravity.  As  we  have  seen,  its  evidence 
is  uncertain  and  unsound  ;  its  full  signification  so  fright- 
ful, that  its  best  advocates  are  gradually  recoiling  from  it 
in  alarm  ;  its  terms  at  the  same  time  such  as  to  allow 
of  no  abatement,  no  concession,  no  compromise,  with- 
out destroying  its  distinctive  meaning  ;  and  its  whole 
character  calculated  to  bewilder  the  simple,  stimulate 
the  bad,  and  sow  the  seeds  of  radical  and  utter  skepti- 
cism as  to  all  moral  and  religious  truth.  Such  is  the 
doctrine  which  has  too  long  held  its  place  as  the  founda- 
tion of  Christian  ethics,  —  a  doctrine  which  we  rejoice 
is  giving  way,  though  slowly,  before  the  light  of  a  purer 
interpretation  of  Christianity. 


DISCOUESE    VII. 


ETERNAL  PUNISHMENT. 

HE  THAT  SOWETH  TO  HIS  FLESH  SHALL  OF  THE  FLESH  REAP  COR- 
RUPTION ;  BUT  HE  THAT  SOWETH  TO  THE  SPIRIT  SHALL  OF 
THE   SPIRIT    REAP  LIFE   EVERLASTING.  —  Gal.  vi.  8. 

I  HAVE  now  examined,  one  by  one,  the  several  doc- 
trines of  Orthodoxy,  as  they  bear  on  the  Divine  economy 
generally,  the  nature  of  God,  and  on  the  moral  con- 
ditions under  which  we  live.  A  further  point  remains  : 
that,  namely,  which  refers  to  the  destination  of  mankind 
in  the  future  world.  No  nation  of  men  has  ever  existed 
which  did  not  believe,  more  or  less  clearly,  in  immor- 
tality. No  system  of  religion  has  ever  been  taught, 
which  did  not  have  some  answer  as  to  this  topic  of 
solemn  and  awful  inquiry.  And  our  purpose  now  is  to 
inquire,  What  answer  does  Orthodoxy  give,  and  with 
what  sort  of  anticipations  does  it  bid  men  look  for- 
ward to  the  unseen  world  ?  What  evidence  does  it  offer 
to  sustain  its  assertions,  and  what  are  the  merits  and 
advantages  of  the  view  which  it  presents  ? 

In  answer  to  these  questions  we  may  say.  In  brief, 
that  the  Orthodox  doctrine  of  the  future  world  is  of  a 
12* 


138  ETERNAL    PUNISHMENT. 

piece  with  the  whole  system  of  which  it  forms  a  part. 
Its  style  of  assertion  is  the  same  ;  the  nature  of  its 
evidence  is  the  same  ;  and  the  intrinsic  objections  which 
we  have  found  lying  against  the  other  features  of  the 
scheme  apply  here  in  equal  or  added  strength.  What 
that  doctrine  is  in  general,  I  have  implied  or  asserted  all 
along.  I  have  shown  how  the  very  nature  of  the  scheme 
under  review  requires  endless  perdition  to  be  presup- 
posed of  the  natural  condition  of  the  human  race  ;  and 
that  this  idea,  in  all  its  strictness,  must  be  held,  as  offer- 
ing the  only  motive  for  Christ  to  make,  or  man  to  ac- 
cept, the  sacrifice  of  atonement.  As  it  is  essential 
to  the  significance  of  the  scheme  throughout,  so  it  makes 
its  fitting  crown  and  consummation.  It  forms  the  point 
of  appeal  in  all  the  representations  of  that  style  of  theol- 
ogy ;  it  is  very  confidently  supposed  to  be  proved  by  the 
explicit  terms  of  Scripture  ;  and,  by  its  vague  terror,  it 
doubtless  does  very  much  to  perpetuate  the  hold  of  that 
system  upon  the  general  mind.  Respecting  a  doctrine 
so  tenaciously  held,  so  vehemently  urged,  our  investiga- 
tion should  be  serious  and  deliberate.  I  ask  your  atten- 
tion, therefore,  to  a  careful  inquiry  as  to  its  character 
and  its  proof. 

The  nature  of  my  argument,  appealing  in  the  severest 
manner  to  reason,  and  not  to  passion  or  imagination, 
does  not  allow  me  to  prejudice  you  beforehand  with 
highly-wrought  statements  T)f  what  the  popular  idea  of 
hell  implies.  I  should  be  sorry  to  offend  your  taste  by 
descriptions  that  to  me  are  simply  repulsive  and  barbar- 
ous. I  am  willing  not  to  hold  the  majority  of  Orthodox 
believers  responsible  for  such  pictures  of  the  future  world  ; 
to  regard  them  merely  as  the  imagery,  coarse,  revolting, 
and  grotesque,   by  which  a  certain  class  of  minds  have 


ETERNAL    PUNISHMENT.  139 

sought  to  express  a  sincere  horror  of  sin,  and  an  honest 
sense  of  the  penahy  it  deserves.  As  you  know,  many 
persons  make  free  use* of  such  imagery,  without  remorse 
or  scruple.  Taking  the  hint  from  some  figurative  de- 
scriptions in  Scripture,  they  have  accumulated  unspar- 
ingly material  images  of  horror.  And  not  unfrequently 
they  have  deliberately  tried  to  harrow  up  men's  feelings, 
by  drawing  on  their  fancy  for  exaggerated  comparisons 
of  the  supposed  tortures  of  hell  with  those  of  racks, 
flames,  and  the  horrible  enginery  of  the  Inquisition  ;  or 
else  have  outraged  their  affection,  by  declaring  that  God 
so  schools  and  disciplines  the  minds  of  the  saints  in 
glory,  that  part  of  the  joys  of  heaven  will  be  to  witness 
the  infinite  and  hopeless  agonies  of  the  damned. 

All  appeals  and  descriptions  such  as  these,  though 
still  included  in  the  coarse  popular  representations  of 
Christianity,  I  shall  dismiss  with  very  few  w^ords  of  com- 
ment. I  consider  them  simply  as  showing  a  morbid  and 
distempered  condition  of  the  mind.  Their  plainest  state- 
ment is  their  plainest  refutation.  They  are  heathen  in 
their  origin  and  barbarous  in  their  spirit.  Reduced  to 
their  plain  meaning,  and  taken  in  connection  with  the 
other  kindred  doctrines  of  election,  predestination,  and 
natural  depravity,  they  are  bald  and  shocking  blasphemy, 
without  a  parallel  in  any  system  of  paganism  that  the 
world  has  known.  Heathen  religions  have  indeed  repre- 
sented a  jealous  and  remorseless  deity  as  exacting  to  the 
uttermost  the  hardest  penalty  they  could  conceive  ;  but 
even  they  scarce  dared  deliberately  to  sum  up  the  full 
meaning  of  the  word  eternal^  as  applied  to  such  a  doom, 
and  above  all,  they  never  committed  the  tenfold  horror 
of  ascribing  it  to  a  perfect  God.  A  deity  treacherous, 
licentious,  cruel,  cowardly,  and  in  terror  for  his  throne, 


140  ETERNAL    PUNISHMENT. 

might  be  imagined  capable  of  exacting  such  a  penalty,  if 
he  had  the  power  ;  for  to  such  a  one  there  was  no  need 
of  pretending  it  to  be  right.  It  was  reserved  for  the 
incongruous  blending  of  the  worst  horror  of  pagan  super- 
stition with  the  Christian  theory  of  an  infinite  and  perfect 
God,  to  affirm  and  justify  such  a  sentence  as  that  passed 
on  a  large  majority  of  the  human  race. 

One  word  more,  that  we  may  have  fairly  done  with 
the  extreme  and  revolting  form  in  which  this  doctrine 
has  been  held.  The  moral  argument  against  it,  as  soon 
as  it  is  once  announced,  is  so  strong  and  imperative,  as 
utterly  to  overbear  any  possible  attempt  at  proof.  It  is 
useless  to  talk  of  evidence  for  a  proposition  so  intrin- 
sically frightful  and  incredible.  Insist  as  you  will  upon 
strict  interpretation  of  the  Christian  Scriptures  ;  still,  to 
a  healthy  mind  that  knows  what  it  is  about,  it  is  only  to 
present  a  plain  alternative.  Granting  the  authority  of 
the  record,  there  must  be  some  mistake  about  its  mean- 
ing. Granting  the  accuracy  of  the  interpretation,  there 
must  be  some  fault  in  the  authority.  I  cannot  suppose  it 
possible  that  any  man  can  seriously  maintain  that  any 
writing  or  tradition  whatsoever,  never  so  imposingly 
vouched  or  implicitly  received,  should  be  able,  in  the 
name  of  God,  to  overthrow^  all  ideas  of  his  mercy  or 
justice  or  power,  as  such  a  doctrine  must  do.  Cover 
it  over  with  what  phraseology  we  will,  —  and  putting 
out  of  sight  just  now  all  the  bearing  it  may  have  on  us 
individually  as  men,  —  the  statement  is  a  flat  declaration 
that  God  has  failed  in  the  great  purpose  of  his  creation, 
and  in  spite  of  his  wisdom,  omnipotence,  and  love,  he 
has  been  unable  to  make  the  universe  in  great  part  any 
thing  but  a  wreck,  a  dungeon,  a  house  of  horror,  an 
eternal  monument  of  his  baffled  will  and  vindictive  wrath. 


ETERNAL    PUNISHMENT.  141 

A  sound  mind,  say  what  we  will,  cannot  agree  to  such  a 
statement ;  and  the  more  closely  the  argument  for  it 
is  pressed,  the  more  evident  is  the  way  of  escape  — 
if  that  is  the  only  one  —  to  infidelity.  I  should  feel 
humiliated  to  use  any  other  argument  in  reference  to 
it  than  this  one  appeal  to  your  honest  sense  of  right 
and  wrong. 

I  am  willing  to  believe  that  the  real  meaning  of  those 
who  contend  for  the  Orthodox  doctrine  of  retribution  is 
different  from  the  gross  and  material  view  w^hich  we  have 
been  considering.  Even  here  I  have  said  nothing  of  the 
physical  absurdity  involved  in  the  idea  of  the  two  separ- 
ate, eternal  kingdoms  of  absolute  bliss  and  woe,  —  the 
material  heaven,  with  its  continual  light  and  music  and  its 
pavement  of  trodden  gold,  the  material  hell,  with  flame 
and  chains  and  instruments  of  horrid  torture.  I  have 
spoken  only  of  the  moral  idea  contained  ;  and  this,  in 
great  measure,  applies  to  every  form  in  which  the  doc- 
trine of  vindictive  punishment  can  be  held.  Still,  I  will 
grant  its  defenders  the  benefit  of  the  admission,  that  they 
do  not  intend  strictly  the  two  visible  and  outward  regions 
of  happiness  and  torture  ;  that  they  regard  the  material 
images  as  symbols  of  a  spiritual  fact  ;  and  that  the  chas- 
tisement and  vengeance  of  guilt  they  speak  of  are  in- 
flicted on  the  living  spirit,  not  the  organized  frame,  and 
in  virtue  of  laws  deep  and  fundamental  in  the  constitution 
of  the  soul  itself.  This  is  a  great,  and  to  many  will  ap- 
pear a  dangerous  admission  for  my  argument  ;  but  in 
spite  of  it,  I  shall  hope  to  make  that  good. 

This  much,  then^  of  spiritual  meaning,  I  consider  to 
be  essentially  involved  in  the  Orthodox  dogma,  when 
stripped   of  its  material   imagery  :    that  the  penalty  for 


142  ETERNAL    PUNISHMENT. 

sin  is  absolute  and  final,  affecting  the  everlasting  con- 
dition of  the  soul  ;  that  it  has  no  object  to  serve  in  the 
possible  reformation  of  the  offender,  and  no  respite  to 
hope  from  Divine  justice  ;  that  there  is  not  only  the 
moral  retribution  of  all  wrong  w^hich  the  reason  knows 
and  the  conscience  feels,  and  which  in  some  degree 
affects  all  men,  good  or  bad,  but  that  there  is  super- 
added to  this  an  arbitrary  and  inexpiable  doom,  when 
the  sum  of  a  man's  offences  has  reached  a  certain  point ; 
that  in  the  laws  of  the  Divine  government  there  is  in 
strictness  of  speech  an  "  unpardonable  sin,"  of  w^hich 
the  penalty  is  "  eternal  death";  that  the  chastisement  of 
conscience,  the  agony  of  remorse,  is  not  for  warning, 
but  for  vengeance  ;  and  that,  though  repentance  were 
conceivable,  it  must  go  on  hopelessly  aggravated  without 
end,  a  blank  and  pitiless  and  fruitless  horror  ;  and,  in  fine, 
that  all  we  know  on  earth  of  the  stings  of  self-condemna- 
tion and  reproach,  of  terror  at  one's  own  haunting  accu- 
ser in  his  conscious  heart,  of  the  unspeakable  agony  of 
soul  which  makes  guilty  men  choose  the  shame  of  ex- 
posure and  the  punishment  of  human  laws  and  the  coun- 
tenance of  the  Eternal  Judge  before  their  silent  convic- 
tion of  wrong,  is  but  a  type  of  the  penalty  in  store  for  the 
future  world,  where  God  arbitrarily  imposes  it  as  the 
final  doom  of  man's  guilt.  This,  I  say,  is  involved 
necessarily  in  the  Orthodox  dogma,  and  by  many  sup- 
posed to  be  involved  in  the  very  fact  of  sin.  And  I 
present  it  thus,  apart  from  images  of  a  morbid  fancy, 
and  apart  from  the  aggravation  of  making  it  the  doom 
of  simple  unbelief,  that  we  may  be  clear  and  untram- 
melled in  speaking  of  it.  The  only  points  we  have  now 
to  consider  are  its  evidence  and  its  intrinsic  character. 
Under  these  two  heads  I  shall  comprehend  what  I  have 
to  say  of  my  reasons  for  rejecting  it. 


ETERNAL    PUNISHMENT.  143 

J.  The  evidence  of  a  doctrine  that  concerns  so 
nearly  the  fundamental  laws  of  our  moral  constitution 
ought  to  be  most  severely  scrutinized,  and  to  abide  all 
investigation  clear  and  unimpeachable.  It  is  in  this 
character,  as  professing  to  pronounce  with  authority,  on 
grounds  wholly  different  from  those  on  which  scientific 
or  philosophic  truth  is  established,  that  we  should  view 
it  very  critically.  The  philosophical  belief  of  some  men, 
it  is  true,  is  very  similar  to  the  substance  of  this  doc- 
trine ;  but  in  their  case  it  rests  on  the  reading  of  their 
moral  consciousness,  and  may  be  confirmed  or  over- 
thrown by  a  profounder  method  of  philosophy.  Not  so 
with  this.  It  rests  on  evidence  extrinsic,  and  outwardly 
binding.  It  is  sustained  on  authority,  —  the  authority  of 
texts  and  their  interpretation.  Comprising  a  philosophy 
of  sin,  its  proof  is  critical  and  Scriptural,  not  philo- 
sophical. Of  the  essential  idea  I  shall  speak  more  fully 
towards  the  close  of  my  remarks,  and  state  my  objec- 
tions generally  to  this  view  of  sin  and  its  consequences. 
At  present  my  purpose  is  to  show  that  it  is  not  neces- 
sarily implied,  or  positively  taught,  in  the  words  of  the 
Christian  Scriptures.  The  burden  of  proof  being  thrown 
upon  that  side,  I  wish  to  show  that  the  evidence  is  not 
strong  enough  to  bear  it. 

*<The  Bible  evidently  all  along  assumes  the  fact  of 
retribution,  or  actual  punishment  of  sin  ;  and  this  in  the 
future  world  as  well  as  the  present,  heightened,  too,  by 
all  the  conscience  may  suggest  as  to  our  desert,  and  by 
all  the  imagination  may  represent  of  a  condition  stripped 
of  the  defences  and  disguises  that  shield  and  cover  guilt 
in  the  present  life.  Indeed,  this  seems  a  necessary  part 
of  our  moral  constitution.  Once  presuming  the  immor- 
tality of  the  soul,  that  is,  the  continuance  of  our  con- 


144  ETERNAL    PUNISHMENT. 

scious  being,  we  cannot  possibly  divorce  it  from  the  con- 
sequences of  cherished  wrong.  If  there  is  a  future  Hfe, 
it  must  bear  the  impress  of  the  present.  The  soul 
passes  over  to  that  state  such  as  it  has  become  during  its 
probation  here.  Memory,  if  nothing  more,  must  be  an 
indissoluble  bond  between  the  two  spheres  of  being. 
Abolish  memory,  and  to  all  intents  and  purposes  you 
abolish  the  soul  itself.  Cut  off  the  communion  of  con- 
sciousness between  this  life  and  that  to  come,  and  you  cut 
off  all  connection  of  the  vital  principle,  as  completely  as, 
by  damming  up  a  stream,  you  destroy  its  flow  or  com- 
pel it  to  start  afresh.  It  is  another  stream  then,  and  not 
the  same,  though  the  water  may  be  identical.  Now  it  is 
the  peculiarity  of  all  religious  language,  that  it  is  pro- 
foundly imbued  with  this  idea  of  the  indissoluble  con- 
sciousness of  the  moral  life.  It  places  its  motive  in 
the  future,  because  to  it  that  is  as  the  present.  It  bids 
us  act  for  another  life,  because  to  it  that  is  all  one  with 
this,  and  equally  near.  And  it  would  be  impossible  to 
frame  a  religious  statement,  exhortation,  or  appeal,  ad- 
dressed to  our  moral  nature,  that  should  not,  in  express 
terms  or  by  clear  implication,  involve  the  certainty  of 
moral  retribution,  in  clearness  and  strength  proportioned 
to  the  earnestness  of  the  sentiment  or  appeal  itself. 

This  is  precisely  what  we  find  throughout  in  the  lan- 
guage of  the  Bible.  What  have  been  taken  as  threaten- 
ings  or  positive  statements  of  the  sinner's  future  doom 
may  be  considered  (if  we  please)  simply  as  forebodings 
of  the  human  consciousness,  deeply  impressed  with  the 
reality  of  the  future  state.  I  do  not  say  at  present  that 
this  is  their  only  meaning  ;  but  for  my  immediate  purpose 
it  may  be  regarded  as  their  essential  meaning.  That 
is,  whatever  else  the  language  of  Scripture  may  imply. 


ETERNAL   PUNISHMENT.  145 

it  certainly  does  manifest  a  most  deep  and  lively  and 
solemn  sense  of  the  reality  of  the  great  fact  of  moral 
retribution,  —  a  fact  eternally  true,  involved  in  the  first 
elements  of  our  moral  nature,  and  working  perpetually 
to  the  reward  or  punishment  of  every  act  and  thought. 
In  the  words  of  the  passage  from  which  my  text  is  taken, 
''  God  is  not  mocked  :  for  whatsoever  a  man  soweth,  that 
shall  he  also  reap.  For  he  that  soweth  to  his  flesh  shall 
of  the  flesh  reap  corruption  ;  but  he  that  soweth  to  the 
spirit  shall  of  the  spirit  reap  life  everlasting."  I  do  not 
deem  it  necessary  to  say  any  thing  more  of  the  general 
tone  of  Scripture  language,  than  that  it  is  pervaded  out 
and  out  by  this  profound  moral  consciousness,  and  that 
it  certainly  employs  the  very  strongest  terms  in  speaking 
of  the  penalty  that  impends  over  human  sin.  So  far  as 
it  concerns  the  reality  of  retribution,  in  this  world  or  the 
world  to  come,  the  common-sense  interpretation  seems 
the  only  true  or  possible  interpretation. 

But  when  we  go  beyond  the  simple  fact,  and  come  to 
descriptions  of  the  nature  and  mode  of  the  penalty  for 
sin,  we  must  guard  against  being  misled  by  phrases  of 
speech  which  indicate  merely  the  mental  habits  and 
associatfons  of  those  who  used  them.  A  certain  style  of 
imagery  is  used  in  many  parts  of  the  Scriptures,  alluding, 
as  every  scholar  knows,  to  local  customs  and  memories  ; 
and  put  of  this  have  been  framed  most  of  the  popular 
notions  on  the  subject.  Such  words  as  Gehenna,  or 
Hell,  ''  the  worm  that  dieth  not  "  and  "  the  fire  that 
is  not  quenched,"  from  which  most  of  the  usual  phrases 
and  descriptions  are  derived,  were  not  used  at  first  in 
any  thing  like  the  strict  dogmatic,  technical  meaning 
they  afterwards  came  to  bear.  It  is  to  be  observed 
that  the  phraseology  is  not;  Christiap,  but  Jewish.  It 
.  13 


146  ETERNAL    PUNISHMENT. 

is  addressed,  not  to  Christians  generally,  but  to  Jews. 
It  occurs  a  few  times  in  the  Gospels,  where  Jesus  is 
warning  Jews  of  the  certain  consequences  of  obstinate 
guilt,  and  where  he  uses  the  well-known  forms  of  speech 
found  in  the  Prophets  and  other  Hebrew  writers,  and 
once  besides  in  the  Epistle  of  James,  Bishop  of  Jeru- 
salem,—  never  once  in  the  writings  of  either  John  or 
Paul.  In  by  far  the  larger  portion  of  the  Testament, 
the  language  used  to  express  the  fact  of  retribution  ap- 
plies only  (or  most  readily)  to  the  spiritual  law  that 
makes  sin  the  death  and  curse  of  the  soul.  In  a  very 
few  passages,  this  is  impressed  and  enlarged  on  by  the 
familiar  Jewish  images  of  horror  to  which  I  have  al- 
luded. 

Thus  there  are  two  Greek  words  rendered  "  Hell." 
One,  Hades,  signifies  simply  the  grave,  or  the  gloomy 
realm  of  death,  as  when  Jesus  says  Capernaum  shall  be 
"  brought  down  to  hell,"  i.  e.  death  or  ruin.  The 
other,  Gehenna,  is  the  Greek  for  "vale  of  Hinnom,"  — 
a  place  alluded  to  several  times  in  the  Old  Testament. 
It  was  a  valley  near  Jerusalem,  desecrated  to  the  re- 
ligious memory  by  the  ancient  sacrifices  made  in  bar- 
barous times  to  Moloch,  the  god  of  war.  Little  children 
were  scorched  to  death  in  the  arms  of  a  brazen  idol,  or 
burned  in  the  fire  that  blazed  at  his  feet,  while  drums  beat 
to  drown  the  horrid  cries  of  mother  and  babe.  Hence  the 
valley  was  called  Tophet,  or  "the  drum," — afterwards 
the  vale  of  Hinnom,  or  Gehenna  ;  and  this  is  translated 
"  Hell,"  which  is  a  word  in  the  old  Scandinavian  my- 
thology having  precisely  the  same  meaning  as  the  Greek 
word  Hades,  i.  e.  realm  of  the  departed.  The  refuse 
of  the  temple  sacrifice,  and  the  unburied  bodies  of  male- 
factors,  were   cast   out  there   to  be   consumed  by   the 


ETERNAL    PUNISHMENT.  147 

never-dying  worm,  or  burned  in  the  perpetual  fire.  And 
since  it  stood  to  the  Jewish  mind  for  the  image  of  all 
horror  and  impurity,  both  from  its  frightful  associations 
of  old  and  the  ghastly  sight  it  offered  now,  it  formed  the 
most  appropriate  and  striking  picture  of  the  horror  of  a 
thoroughly  corrupt  and  guilty  soul.  Interpreting  it  in 
the  strictest  sense,  we  might  give  its  spiritual  meaning 
thus  :  —  that  the  flames  of  this  ghastly  and  sombre  val- 
ley, consuming  the  loathsome  impurity  of  the  relics  of 
death,  are  but  the  type  of  that  avenging  and  purifying 
fire  of  the  conscience  that  never  dies,  burning  out  the 
foul  and  cherished  corruption  of  a  bad  heart.  That  is, 
it  will  bear  this  meaning  full  as  well  as  any  other.  We 
cannot  strictly  and  literally,  but  only  by  dim  and  remote 
analogies,  interpret  such  imagery  into  a  trustworthy  spir- 
itual sense. 

And  this  general  remark  applies  equally  well  to  the 
language  of  the  Apocalypse,  which  at  first  sight  seems 
even  more  awful  and  explicit,  but  which  in  fact  is  sub- 
stantially the  same,  except  that  its  sea  of  fire  and  brim- 
stone seems  borrowed  from  the  Greek  and  Roman  de- 
scriptions of  Tartarus,  rather  than  from  any  Hebrew 
sources.  Italy  is  a  volcanic  country  ;  and  the  familiar 
imagery  of  Roman  writers  in  reference  to  the  "  world 
below  "  is  taken  (as  is  well  known)  from  the  ordinary 
phenomena  of  such  a  country.  And  it  is  worth  while 
to  observe  that  this  book  is  addressed  to  Christians  un- 
der Roman  powder,  perhaps  in  Rome  itself,  and  suffer- 
ing under  Roman  persecution.  A  glance  will  show  the 
difference  of  its  style  from  any  thing  that  was  ever  ad- 
dressed to  Jews. 

The  parable  of  the  rich  man  and  Lazarus  fi.irnishes 
another  example  of  the  Scripture  style.     Its  evident  in- 


148  ETERNAL    PUNISHMENT. 

tention  is,  to  show  the  utter  mockery  and  futility  of  the 
outward    distinctions    and    gaudy   shows    of   the   world, 
which  most  excite  men's  ambition,  desire,  and  rivalry. 
The     proud    rich    man    and    the    poor    leprous    beggar 
meet  face  to  face  before  the  equal  eye  of  God  and  of 
eternity,   and   the    only   distinction    held  valid    there   is 
that  which  stamps  the  one  good,  the  other  bad,  morally  ; 
and   the   most  touching  thing  of  all   is    the   humiliation 
and  debasement  which  that  proud  heart  acknowledges. 
Beyond  this  we  cannot  go  with  any  certainty.     As  to 
the  general   air   and  phraseology,  they   are  very  much 
such   as   one   meets  in  citations  from  old   Jewish  apo- 
logues and  commentaries,  which  contain  so  large  a  pro- 
portion of  the  recorded  Hebrew  thought.      Such   inci- 
dents and  scenes,  introducing  the  patriarchs  and  person- 
ages of  the  Old  Testament,  have  always  made  a  staple 
of  the  moral  instruction  of  the  Jews,  and,  I  believe,  do 
still.      A  grave,  traditionary,   legendary  people,  with   a 
stronger  sense  of  religious  and  ritual  law  than  of  accu- 
rate history,  their  mind  delights  in  clothing  every  moral 
thought  or  point  of  instruction  in  the  antiquated  garb  of 
the  most  remote  age.*     Into  the  scenes  and  retributions 
of  the  life  to  come,  they  still  introduced  the  same  fa- 
miliar personages  as  characters  in  the  same  class  of  mor- 
al apologues.     Abraham  and   Moses,  the  patriarchs  and 
prophets,  personified  the  existences  of  the  future,  as  of 
the   past  and   present,   moral  world.     And   this  mental 
characteristic   accounts   fully,    I  think,  for  the  outward 
and   peculiar  features   of  a  parable  addressed  to   them. 
It  cannot  be  literally  and  precisely  interpreted,  without 
great  confusion  and  even  absurdity  of  thought.     It  can- 

*  See  instances  of  this  in  Strauss's  comments  on  the  Temptation  of 
Jesus. 


\ 


ETERNAL    PUNISHMENT.  149 

not  be  carried  much  beyond  the  plain  and  simple  hint 
already  given,  without  disturbing  our  ideas  of  an  equita- 
ble retribution,  and  injuring  the  simplicity  there  should 
be  in  our  view  of  the  spiritual  world.  Jesus  meant  to 
teach  quite  a  different  lesson,  than  to  let  in  our  human 
glance  to  rest  on  the  mysteries  of  futurity.  We  receive 
the  lesson,  illustrated  and  impressed  by  the  imagery  and 
style  most  familiar  to  his  hearers'  minds  ;  and  beyond 
that  we  do  not  care  to  go. 

I  think  enough  has  now  been' said  to  show  the  impos- 
sibility of  reasoning  strictly  from  the  terms  of  any  im- 
agery in  the  Testament,  as  to  positive  facts  in  the  con- 
dition of  the  future  world.  Indeed,  for  purposes  of 
argument,  it  is  not  too  much  to  say  that  the  whole  field 
is  narrowed  down  to  one  point,  the  interpretation  of  a 
single  word.  This  is  the  word  (or  kindred  words)  so 
often  rendered  eternal^  or  everlastings  or  eternity.*  The 
same  expression  is  used  of  the  life  and  of  the  death  of 
the  soul  in  the  future  state  ;  and  the  most  valid  and 
plausible  argument  is,  that  we  have  as  much  reason  to 
expect  unending  torture  on  the  one  hand  as  unending 
blessedness  on  the  other.  The  same  word  is  used  for 
both  ;  and  we  have  no  authority  to  distinguish  between 
them,  and  make  this  mean  everlasting,  and  that  of  lim- 
ited duration.  Concerning  this  —  the  centre  and  sum 
of  the  reasoning  for  eternal  punishment  —  we  may  re- 
mark a  few  things. 

First,  if  the  soul  is  immortal  by  nature,  and  inde- 
structible in  essence,  we  do  not  need  to  make  the  dis- 
tinction spoken  of.  We  say  that  sin  in  the  course  of 
time  will  probably  be  outgrown  and  purged  away  ;  while 

*  AIoov,  alavios- 

13* 


150  ETERNAL    PUNISHMENT. 

the  soul  lives  for  ever,  in  virtue  of  its  inherent  immor- 
tality. Any  other  shade  of  meaning  that  will  fit  the 
sense,  and  can  be  shown  to  belong  to  the  word,  may  be 
employed,  and  the  true  doctrine  of  the  future  life  is  not 
touched  on  or  impaired. 

Next,  granting  to  this  word  the  strict  meaning  "  ever- 
lasting "  in  many  passages,  it  does  not  follow  that  this 
is  the  only  meaning.  In  two  to  one  of  the  places  where 
it  is  found,  it  must  at  any  rate  refer  to  what  is  transitory 
and  not  everlasting,  (as  where  it  signifies  "  the  present 
world,  with  its  cares,  temptations,  and  desires,"*)  and 
it  is  quite  optional  with  us  in  what  sense  we  will  under- 
stand it  of  the  pertalty  of  guilt.  At  most,  it  can  only 
be  made  out  that  the  same  expression  is  used  in  speak- 
ing of  this  which  is  also  used  in  some  cases  to  express 
duration  without  end  ;  but  we  have  not  the  least  hint, 
except  from  our  general  way  of  viewing  the  subject,  as 
to  the  sense  in  which  we  shall  take  it  here.  And  so,  in 
strictness,  our  argument  fails  us  at  the  very  point  where 
it  was  to  be  applied. 

And  once  more,  this  word,  so  far  from  bearing  the 
test  of  rigid  critical  investigation,  becomes  vague  and 
undecided,  and  unfit  to  bear  the  pressure  of  the  dogma 
that  is  built  upon  it.  It  breaks  down  under  the  weight, 
or  it  dissipates  from  its  compactness  and  consistency, 
and  becomes  unfit  to  be  used  for  such  a  purpose.  When 
looked  at  through  the  glass  of  scientific  criticism,  instead 
of  retaining  its  sharp  marks  and  boundaries,  like  a  crys- 
tal, it  expands  into  something  vague  and  cloudy,  like  a 
nebulous  star,  which  to  the  eye  seems  distinct  enough, 
but  a  bliir  comes  on  it  when  looked  at  through  a  tel- 


*  Robinson's  N.  T.  Lexicon,  s.  v. 


ETERNAL    PUNISHMENT.  151 

escope.  And  this  word,  on  which  the  whole  argument 
is  biiih,  appears  in  its  primary  and  essential  meaning  not 
to  indicate  duration^  but  life  or  breath.  It  is  at  least  an 
open  question,  whether  its  radical  signification  is  "always 
existing  "  or  "  spiritually  existing  "  ;  and  therefore  it 
cannot  be  used  with  any  confidence  as  an  argument.  In 
form,  it  is  the  participle  of  a  well-known  verb,  signifying 
"to  breathe."  In  strictness  of  speech,  it  does  not  show 
the  punishment  of  sin  to  be  eternal,  but  speaks  of  it  as 
affecting  the  very  life,  the  vital  principle  of  the  soul  it- 
self.* It  leaves  us  free  to  reason  as  we  will  of  the  ul- 
timate consequences  of  guilt  ;  meanwhile  warning  us,  in 
the  most  solemn  and  emphatic  manner,  of  the  harm  that 
is  wrought  in  the  degradation,  the  corruption,  the  bond- 
age, the  torture,  of  the  living  spirit  that  has  harboured 
the  evil  thing.  The  life  of  the  soul,  not  the  duration 
of  the  term  of  its  chastisement,  is  the  idea  conveyed 
by  the  most  strict  and  accurate  rendering  of  this  phrase. 
Without  going  more  minutely  into  the  critical  discus- 
sion of  words  and  phrases,  I  think  w^e  have  found  enough 
to  assure  us  confidently  of  the  following  result  :  —  that 
we  are  not  entitled  to  interpret  literally,  or  press  very 
closely,  the  language  of  parables  or  imagery  addressed 
to  Jews  and  pagans  ;  that  the  phraseology  of  the  Tes- 
tament, so  far  as  it  can  be  relied  on  to  prove  any  thing 
as  to  future  punishment,  is  reduced  to  the  exposition  of 
a  single  word,  and  that  this  word,  so  far  from  sustaining 
the  Orthodox  idea,  is  at  best  uncertain  and  variable  in 
its  meaning,  and  in  all  probability  refers  to  an  entirely 
different  order  of  thought.  So  that,  at  the  end  of  our 
inquiry,  we  find  ourselves  at  the  same  liberty  as  at  first 


*  Christian  Examiner  for  1828. 


152  ETERNAL    PUNISHMENT. 

(even  on  the  strictest  view  of  Scripture  inspiration)  to 
interpret  sin  and  its  penalty  according  to  our  best  and 
highest  thought  in  general  as  to  religious  things.  Let  us 
consider,  then,  briefly,  the  character  of  the  doctrine  we 
are  reviewing,  and  how  far  it  may  be  superseded  by  a 
more  spiritual  view. 

n.  The  habit  of  regarding  the  retribution  of  the  future 
life  as  simply  penal  in  its  nature  and  strictly  endless  in 
duration  has  given  rise  to  a  way  of  thinking  on  the  sub- 
ject which  I  cannot  but  consider  false  and  hurtful  ; 
false,  because  it  contradicts  what  we  seem  to  know  most 
clearly  of  the  moral  constitution  of  the  soul,  and  hurtful, 
because  it  obscures  our  view  of  natural  justice,  the  true 
character  of  sin,  and  the  attributes  of  a  perfect  God. 
Of  many  wrong  and  strange  notions  on  kindred  topics  I 
have  spoken  distinctly  enough  before.  But  there  are 
others  which  belong  peculiarly  to  the  subject  under  re- 
view :  and  as  Christianity  has  been  made  responsible  for 
so  many  errors,  it  seems  essential  to  show  its  intrinsic 
harmony  with  the  highest  views  we  can  gain  respecting 
'all  matters  connected  with  the  spiritual  life. 

The  first  is,  that  the  generally  received  opinion  of 
punishment  arbitrarily  affixed  to  guilt,  and  having  no 
reference  to  possible  contrition  and  amendment,  has 
blinded  men  very  much  to  the  natural  and  necessary 
consequences  of  guilt.  The  whole  doctrine  of  retribu- 
tion, as  wrought  out  by  the  essential  laws  of  our  moral 
nature,  has  been  overlaid  and  falsified.  Hence  have  aris- 
en confusion  and  error  without  measure.  For  instance, 
while  no  one  has  thought  of  positively  denying  such  retri- 
bution, it  has  been  left  to  physiologists  or  philosophers 
to  illustrate,  and  cast  aside  entirely  from  men's  religious 
opinion,  as  if  it  had  no  place  there.      The  penalty  of  sin 


ETERNAL    PUNISHMENT.  153 

has  been  supposed  to  be  arbitrary,  having  nothing  to  do 
with  the  terms  and  conditions  of  the  present  hfe,  but 
superadded  to  these,  and  referred  exclusively  to  another 
world.  And  hence  a  profound  skepticism  among  many 
as  to  the  very  fact  itself.  Sin  has  been  held  to  belong 
only  to  the  present  life  and  the  bodily  organization  ;  and 
the  profound  connection  that  must  always  subsist  be- 
tween this  and  the  spiritual  world,  in  virtue  of  our  per- 
sonal identity,  has  been  denied  or  overlooked.  On  the 
one  hand,  presuming  on  the  goodness  of  God,  it  has 
been  said  he  could  not  inflict  arbitrary  and  endless,  aim- 
less pain  ;  so  that  one  who  succeeds  in  drowning  con- 
science here,  and  shuffles  along  through  life  in  reckless 
guilt,  escapes  all  consequences,  and  has  nothing  to  dread 
in  the  life  to  come,  and  enters  that  unseen  state  on  a 
perfect  equality,  in  every  spiritual  privilege,  with  the 
noblest,  purest,  and  best  of  men,  —  of  course  destroying 
utterly  all  vital  connection  between  this  life  and  the  other, 
and  making  that  virtually  an  arbitrary  new  creation  :  and, 
on  the  other  hand,  men  have  been  encouraged  to  think 
that  on  certain  set  conditions,  by  penance  or  peculiar 
personal  experience,  the  most  corrupt  and  hardened 
wretch  can  be  miraculously  made  anew,  and  put  on  an 
equal  level  in  an  instant  with  the  most  glorious  saints  in 
light.  It  is  hard  to  say  which  view  is  more  fatal  to 
a  sound  feeling  of  moral  responsibility,  or  more  danger- 
ous in  the  temptation  it  holds  out  to  daring  guilt. 

Another  error  into  which  men  have  been  led  by  this 
doctrine  is  that  they  talk  vaguely  of  sin  in  the  abstract 
and  the  "infinite"  punishment  it  deserves,  instead  of 
soberly  looking  at  the  fact,  and  graduating  their  judgment 
of  it  by  the  degrees  of  real  guilt.  The  futility  of  all 
attempts  to  reason  out  a  doctrine  by  postulates  of  what 


154  ETERNAL    PUNISHMENT. 

is  infinite,  I  trust,  has  been  sufficiently  illustrated  and  ex-  | 
posed  before.*  We  cannot  with  any  safety  reason  from  | 
what  to  our  mind  appears  as  infinite.  If  we  say  that 
human  sin  deserves  an  infinite  degree  of  punishment, 
because  committed  against  a  Being  of  absolute  power 
and  perfe^ion,  it  follows  just  as  clearly,  from  the  same 
postulate,  that  human  virtue  deserves  infinite  reward. 
And  since  probably  no  man  is  without  his  virtues  and 
no  man  is  without  his  faults,  it  follows  that  the  two  infin- 
ites cancel  each  other,  and  there  is  left  to  judge  men  by 
only  the  finite  element,  which  is  the  act  or  the  motive 
for  which  each  one  feels  himself  personally  responsible. 
And  so  the  whole  doctrine,  as  to  its  philosophical  basis, 
is  swept  away. 

Besides,  it  is  not  true  that  the  conscience,  any  more 
than  the  reason,  acknowledges  strictly  infinite  degrees  of 
guilt.  At  most  it  is  only  a  popular  form  of  speech,  the 
force  of  which  disappears  as  soon  as  we  measure  it  by 
any,  the  simplest  test.  To  show  my  meaning  more 
plainly  by  an  historical  example.  Robert,  the  eldest 
son  of  William  the  Norman,  conqueror  of  England,  was 
a  bold,  fierce,  cruel  man  ;  and  for  many  years  was  en- 
gaged in  the  most  barbarous,  revolting,  and  unpardonable 
crime  that  perhaps  a  man  can  commit,  —  that  is,  fighting 
in  deadly  hate  and  conflict  with  his  own  father  and  broth- 
ers, fiercely  and  relentlessly  trampling  down  the  rights, 
happiness,  and  liberties  of  the  people  dependent  on  his 
mercy.  It  was  a  cruel  and  parricidal  family,  and  the 
fashion  of  war  in  those  days  was  savage  and  unmerciful. 
Once  he  was  only  prevented  by  accident  from  taking  his 
own  father's  life.    Now  it  happened  afterwards  that  he  was 

*  Page  104. 


ETERNAL    PUNISHMENT.  155 

captured  by  his  own  brother,  Henry  the  First  of  Eng- 
land, and  put  in  prison  ;  and  failing  in  the  attempt  to  es- 
cape, his  brother  had  him  more  closely  guarded,  and  both 
his  eyes  burnt  out  with  a  pan  of  heated  brass.  And  so 
he  remained  in  prison,  blind  and  miserable,  till  about  the 
age  of  eighty  years.  Now  I  say,  that,  in  any  case  that 
appeals  like  this  to  our  imagination  and  human  feeling, — 
when  we  consider  the  long  and  dreary  lapse  of  time,  the 
old  m,an's  whitening  hairs  and  decaying  strength,  the 
fierce  play  of  baffled  passion,  the  bitter  memory  of  the 
past,  —  we  unavoidably  feel  that,  for  mere  vengeance, 
tenfold  has  been  exacted  for  any  amount  of  previous 
crime  ;  and  our  horror  of  his  misdeeds  is  lost  in  our  exe- 
cration of  the  savage  tyranny  of  his  gaoler.  This  is  a 
strong  case,  both  of  guilt  and  its  apparent  penalty  ;  but 
consider  how  infinitely  it  falls  short  of  the  least  of  the 
horrors  in  the  popular  idea  of  hell,  —  how  far  more  mild 
and  merciful  his  doom  than  that  which  theologians  say  is 
inflicted  on  simple  unbelief,  by  an  inexorable  and  angry 
God  !  Then,  again,  consider  how  brief  and  fragmentary 
human  life  is  at  best.  Nero  and  Commodus,  two  of  the 
worst  of  the  Roman  emperors,  whose  names  stand  for 
all  that  is  monstrous,  inhuman,  profligate,  and  tyrannical, 
perished  each  at  about  the  age  of  thirty.  Some  mon- 
sters of  wickedness  have  been  not  much  more  than  dis- 
eased children.  There  is  no  such  thing  possible  as  to 
frame  in  our  imagination  the  idea  of  crime  such  as  to 
deserve  infinite  punishment,  coolly  and  easily  as  we  may 
state  it  in  the  language  of  our  creeds. 

But  my  final  and  strongest  objection  to  the  doctrine 
under  review  is,  that  it  misstates  and  falsifies  the  real 
essence  and  purpose  of  retribution.  It  is  not  for  the 
purpose  of  inflicting  vengeance,  but  for  the  sake  o(  rous- 


156  ETERNAL    PUNISHMENT. 

ino-  the  moral  consciousness^  that  God  has  affixed  so 
dread  and  terrible  consequences  to  human  guilt.  As 
soon  as  the  retribution  begins  to  work,  we  see  its  moral 
meaning  plain  enough.  It  is  only  before  it  begins  to 
work,  while  the  mind  seems  obstinately  to  brace  itself 
against  it,  that  we  feel  higher  and  higher  degrees  of  it  to 
be  deserved,  —  deserved,  because  required.  Vengeance 
is  turned  to  pity  at  the  first  symptom  of  relenting.  And 
this,  by  all  the  analogies  we  have,  seems  to  be  the  signi- 
fication of  moral  pain.  All  suffering,  so  far  as  we  can 
trace  it  out  and  be  sure  we  understand  it,  is  either  disci- 
plinary and  remedial,  or  else  the  symptom,  and  therefore 
the  merciful  warning,  of  disease.  To  these  two  classes 
it  may  all  be  reduced.  It  is  never  without  its  use.  The 
nerve  of  sensation  is  the  sentinel  of  the  citadel  of  life. 
The  vital  parts  themselves  have  not  the  feeling  of  pain, 
but  only  the  avenues  of  approach  to  them.  It  would  be 
wanton  torture  if  these  were  susceptible,  which,  being 
once  touched,  the  life  itself  is  gone  irrecoverably  ;  and 
the  agony  of  the  most  violent  disease  is  only  the  result  of 
what  in  its  first  intention  was  most  kind  and  merciful. 

So  it  is  in  the  natural  world  ;  and  so  we  may  safely 
reason  over  to  the  spiritual  world.  We  are  justified  in 
assuming,  that  suffering  of  any  sort  ends  not  with  itself; 
and  that  to  all  men  there  is  the  certainty,  or  at  any  rate 
the  possibility,  of  recovery  to  health.  Bodily  diseases 
yield  before  scientific  skill,  though  only  to  a  limited 
degree,  since  the  body  itself  is  mortal  ;  and  the  soul  that 
can  never  die  must  be  capable  always  of  restoration  to 
moral  life.  "  The  wages  of  sin  is  death  ";  not  torture 
without  end,  which  would  be  frightful  and  wanton  cru- 
elty, but  the  loss  and  decay  of  vital  force.  How  near 
we  may  approach  to  brute  unconsciousness  and   moral 


ETERNAL    PUNISHMENT.  157 

death,  we  know  not.  The  Scripture  speaks  of  those 
"  whose  conscience  is  seared  as  with  a  hot  iron,"  so 
that  they  have  apparently  lost,  for  a  time  at  least,  the 
sense  of  pain.  But,  in  the  infinite  resources  of  God's 
providence,  in  the  prevailing  power  of  his  spirit,  which 
infolds  the  soul  more  nearly  in  the  spiritual  world,  we 
may  never  dare  say  absolutely  and  finally  that  there  is  no 
hope.  And,  as  returning  pain  is  a  sign  of  returning 
animation,  and  so  a  source  of  hope,  —  as  the  first  favor- 
able symptom  in  the  treatment  of  a  drowning  or  swoon- 
ing man  is  a  pain  far  more  sharp  and  bitter  than  any  that 
preceded  his  loss  of  consciousness,  —  so,  in  the  possible 
recovery  from  moral  or  spiritual  death,  deep  mortifica- 
tion and  shame,  and  the  sharp  agony  of  grief,  are  far 
more  favorable  symptoms  than  the  numbness  and  stu- 
por of  the  moral  sense  that  went  before. 

Not  for  unavailing  torture,  but  for  life  and  hope,  does 
God  visit  the  ofiending  soul  with  the  stings  of  chastise- 
ment and  remorse.  Not  that  he  will  put  salvation  on  us 
from  without,  or  urge  on  us  a  compulsory  restoration  ; 
but  that,  to  a  being  endowed  with  moral  freedoip,  the 
choice  must  In  the  nature  of  things  be  always  open  ;  the 
great  alternative  of  right  or  wrong  must  always  lie  before 
him.  And,  whatever  the  visitation  of  pain  and  mental 
agony,  it  is  always  a  sign  that  the  soul  is  there  ;  and  it 
may  be  an  effectual,  as  it  is  a  merciful,  warning  to  sum- 
mon it  back  to  holiness.  Stern  and  bitter  as  may  be  the 
penalty,  —  inevitably  the  consequence  and  avenger  of  sin, 
—  it  is  never  so  bitter  but  that  it  may  be  kindly  meant, 
and  the  good  to  be  regained  is  always  worth  a  thousand- 
fold the  pain  and  difficulty  of  the  way. 

Such,  in  few  and  general  terms,  are  the  objections  I 
find  to  the  view  of  endless  and  hopeless  punishment  for 
14 


158  ETERNAL    PUNISHMENT. 

sin,  apart  from  the  gross  and  horrible  way  in  which  dis- 
eased fancy  has  represented  it.  The  evidence  from 
Scripture  has  been  shown  to  be  far  from  adequate  to 
bear  it  out,  while  it  shocks  and  confounds  the  best  un- 
derstanding we  can  gain  of  sin  and  the  consequence  of 
sin.  It  leads  us  to  overlook  the  true  nature  and  extent 
of  the  retribution  God  has  appointed  in  our  moral  nature ; 
it  speaks  to  us  falsely  of  human  acts  deserving  the  doom 
of  an  infinite  penalty  ;  and,  finally,  it  prevents  our  seeing 
the  true  moral  and  disciplinary  uses  of  pain,  without 
which  the  infliction  of  the  penalty  would  be  horrible  and 
wanton  cruelty.  And  in  all  these  ways  it  obscures  the 
true  and  most  solemn  view  of  retribution,  which  God  is 
impressing  on  us  by  every  fact  of  the  outward  world,  by 
every  phasis  of  our  mental  experience.  "  The  future 
must  answer  for  the  present.''^  This  is  eternally  writ  in 
nature,  and  repeated  by  the  living  word  of  God.  The 
present  is  to  prepare  us  for  the  future.  This  is  equally 
and  eternally  and  obviously  true.  "  Whatsoever  a  man 
soweth,  that  shall  he  also  reap.  He  that  soweth  to  his 
flesh  shall  of  the  flesh  reap  corruption  ;  but  he  that  sow- 
eth to  the  spirit  shall  of  the  spirit  reap  life  everlasting." 


DISCOUESE  VIII. 


SCRIPTURE  INFALLIBILITY. 

THE   NEW  testament;    NOT    OF  THE   LETTER,    BUT    OF    THE    SPIRIT; 
FOR    THE    LETTER     KILLETH,     BUT    THE    SPIRIT    GIVETH    LIFE. 

2  Corinthians  iii.  6. 

In  the  discussion  of  all  the  preceding  topics,  I  have 
endeavoured  honestly  to  trace  the  sense  of  the  Scrip- 
tures, and  to  show  the  insufficiency  of  their  evidence, 
even  by  the  most  rigid  rules  of  interpretation,  to  sustain 
the  system  of  doctrines  under  review.  I  have  pre- 
ferred hitherto  to  meet  our  opponents  on  their  own 
ground  ;  to  allow  them  all  the  benefit  of  a  tribunal  they 
claim  to  be  infallible  ;  and  to  leave  in  abeyance  the  dis- 
cussion of  those  prior  assumptions,  of  authority  and  in- 
spiration, which  alone  make  it  possible  for  any  one  to 
entertain,  much  less  defend,  the  opinions  we  have  been 
considering.  And  under  this  disadvantage  I  trust  my 
leading  proposition  has  been  made  good,  —  that  the  sys- 
tem of  Orthodoxy,  while  open  to  all  the  objections  first 
urged  against  it,  does  not  make  part  of  the  legitimate 
sense  of  Scripture,  and  can  be  disproved  by  any  intel- 
ligent believer  in   the   Christian   records.      This   is  the 


160  SCRIPTURE    INFALLIBILITY. 

conviction  which  must  be  left,  I  think,  after  fair  inquiry, 
upon  any  candid  mind. 

I  have  no\y  to  go  one  step  further,  and  show  that  the 
pecuHar  sort  of  authority  claimed  for  the  language  of 
Scripture  cannot  be  established  ;  that  the  attempt  to 
make  the  Bible  consist  of  a  series  of  infallible  proposi- 
tions, absolute  and  final  as  to  all  matters  of  belief,  is 
vain  and  must  always  fail ;  that  it  cannot  be  assumed  as 
a  principle  of  reasoning  without  leading  to  results  con- 
tradictory and  absurd  ;  that  it  fails  of  its  end  as  a  guide 
to  any  clear  and  consistent  exposition  of  religious  truth  ; 
that  it  affords  a  handle  to  every  abuse  of  superstition 
and  extravagance  ;  that  it  is  false  to  the  purport  and  in- 
tention of  the  record,  leads  to  casuistry,  intolerance,  and 
unbehef,  while  it  destroys  that  liberality  of  mind  and 
honest  independence  essential  to  the  best  results  of  hu- 
man character  and  human  thought.  All  these  evils,  I 
am  deeply  convinced,  grow  out  from  the  commonly  pro- 
fessed opinion  as  to  the  inspiration  of  the  Scriptures  ; 
and  in  the  course  of  my  remarks  I  shall  hope  to  make 
my  propositions  good.  But  first  I  must  disembarrass 
myself  of  a  few  preliminary  questions,  lest  the  tenor  of 
what  I  say  should  be  perverted. 

It  was  very  natural  that  men,  having  discarded  the 
authority  of  the  Roman  Church,  and  still  cleaving  with 
strong  conviction  to  the  main  points  of  their  religious 
creed,  should  desire  some  other  authority  to  take  the 
place  of  that.  The  refuge  was  easy  and  natural  from 
the  infallibility  of  the  Church  to  the  infallibility  of  the 
Book.  With  a  mind  habituated  and  practised  to  de- 
pendence, they  seemed  afloat  and  astray  without  an  ex- 
ternal support  or  guide.  With  few  fundamental  philo- 
sophic principles  of  truth  established,  —  without  the  point 


SCRIPTURE    INFALLIBILITY.  161 

of  support  we  find  in  natural  science,  whose  principles, 
so  far  as  they  go,  are  incontestably  and  for  ever  fixed,  — 
without  the  habit  of  freely  exercising  thought  in  logical  or 
critical  discussion,  —  they  Inevitably  craved  what  would 
give  them  even  the  semblance  of  an  ultimate  authority. 
The  tribunal  to  which  they  would  appeal  must  be  as 
large  and  absolute  as  that  they  renounced  ;  and  this 
they  seemed  to  find  in  the  record  of  God's  revelations 
to  his  chosen  race,  covering  a  period  of  four  thousand 
years. 

Then,  too,  the  Bible,  chance-discovered,  had  kindled 
their  thought  and  nerved  them  with  energy.  Its  decla- 
rations of  the  freedom  of  the  religious  life  opened  to 
them  a  whole  new  world  of  meaning  in  religion,  opposed 
strongly  to  the  barren  traditions  and  ceremonies  of  the 
Church.  Perhaps  they  had  not  entered  into  the  pro- 
found symbohsm  of  the  doctrine  and  worship  of  the 
Middle  Ages,  —  whether  from  the  fault  of  their  own 
mind,  or  from  the  corruptions  by  which  that  symbolism 
was  overgrown  ;  but  at  any  rate  here  was  something 
which  in  its  simplicity  and  strength  came  home  to  them. 
The  teaching  of  the  Bible  to  them  was  living,  practical, 
glorious  truth.  And  besides,  the  Bible  furnished  them 
their  weapons  to  fight  against  the  Church.  It  was  a  des- 
perate fight  for  them  ;  for  within  living  memory  that 
Church  had  put  out  its  hand  to  persecute,  and  strike 
down,  and  slay  ;  its  supremacy  was  almost  uncontested, 
and  hitherto  it  had  succeeded  In  crushing  each  heresy 
as  it  rose.  In  that  emergency,  the  Bible,  and  the  Bible 
only,  was  the  defence  of  Protestants.  Translated  into 
the  mother  tongue,  circulated  everywhere  among  the 
people,  and  everyw^here  received  with  the  same  enthusi- 
astic reverence,  as  a  new  charter  of  emancipation,  it  set 
14* 


162  SCRIPTURE    INFALLIBILITY. 

on  foot  a  movement  that  could  sustain  itself,  —  kindled 
a  fire  that  would  not  go  out.  We  must  take  all  these 
things  into  the  account,  if  we  would  understand  the  ven- 
eration the  Reformers  cherished  for  that  book,  and  the 
unqualified  claim  they  were  the  first  to  make  for  its  ■ 
sufiicient,  literal,  and  absolute  inspiration.  I  would  not 
have  it  thought  that  I  disparage  or  deny  the  importance 
of  this  implicit  reverence  for  the  Bible,  mixed  though  it 
was  with  error.  It  furnished,  perhaps,  the  only  possible 
point  of  transition  from  the  faith  of  tradition  to  that  of 
reason  and  liberty.  Through  its  medium,  the  historical 
life  of  Christendom  remains  one,  and  loses  not  its  con- 
tinuity. And  in  this  regard  its  value  cannot  be  over- 
estimated. It  saved  the  world  from  the  threatening  al- 
ternative between  Romanism  and  Infidelity. 

Again,  I  do  not  propose  here  to  meet  the  fundamental 
question,  as  to  the  need  and  value  of  external  authority 
to  vouch  for  religious  truth.  Without  doubt,  as  a  mind 
is  trained  healthily  and  accustomed  to  reflect,  it  comes 
to  feel  less  and  less  the  pressure  of  such  authority. 
Though  its  support  may  tacitly  remain,  yet  it  is  less  pal- 
pably felt.  Still,  some  minds  at  all  stages,  and  most 
minds  at  a  certain  stage,  do  undoubtedly  feel  the  need 
of  absolute  and  implicit  reliance  on- the  positive  declara- 
tions of  minds  of  a  higher  order  ;  and,  a  fortiori^  on 
what  stands  to  them  as  the  express  declaration  of  the 
God  of  truth.  With  this  habit  or  disposition  of  the 
mind  I  have  no  intention  to  interfere.  The  question  of 
authority  as  a  guide  in  forming  religious  opinion,  I  shall 
leave  untouched  ;  my  only  object  being  to  show  that  it 
does  not  reside  in  the  words  and  recorded  forms  of 
speech  of  the  Bible,  taken  as  a  whole  and  without  ex- 
ception.    It  it  can  be  shown  to  exist  at  all,  it  is  in  the 


SCRIPTURE    INFALLIBILITY.  163 

authentic  declarations  of  one  suitably  commissioned  and 
vouched  as  a  messenger  of  God  ;  and  the  true  point  of 
inspiration  will  be  his  life,  not  the  record  of  it,  —  his 
deeds  and  words,  not  the  channel  through  which  they 
are  made  known  to  us. 

And  still  further,  in  the  critical  discussion  of  the 
Scriptures  I  do  not  enter  into  the  preliminary  questions 
of  the  higher  criticism  ;  namely,  the  possibility  of  mir- 
acles and  the  nature  of  a  revelation.  Such  questions 
demand  far  ampler  consideration  than  could  be  given 
here,  and  would  far  too  much  complicate  the  purpose 
I  have  in  view.  It  may  save  trouble  to  accept  the  one 
broad  line  of  distinction  between  the  Old  and  New  Tes- 
taments,—  not  just  now  on  critical  grounds,  but  because 
we  are  only  occupied  with  what  belongs  properly  to 
Christians.  It  would  be  wrong  to  supersede  or  antici- 
pate any  historical  or  critical  inquiry  ;  so  the  simplest 
course  is  to  confine  myself  expressly,  in  the  statement  I 
am  making,  to  the  Christian  Scriptures.  For  my  im- 
mediate purpose  I  must  assume  their  genuineness,  — 
that  they  are  rightly  ascribed  to  their  authors  ;  their 
authenticity,  —  that  they  are  what  they  claim  to  be,  the 
correct  narrative  of  real  events  or  addresses  made  on 
real  occasions  ;  and  their  authority,  —  that,  when  rightly 
understood,  they  give  us  knowledge  of  truth  which  ought 
to  be  known,  and  precepts  which  ought  to  be  obeyed. 
The  life  and  works  of  Christ  are  of  course  the  central 
point  of  the  history,  and  the  sanction  of  the  doctrine, 
whatever  it  be,  contained. 

And  lastly,  in  the  denial  of  that  exclusive  and  infalli- 
ble inspiration  claimed  for  the  books  of  Scripture,  I 
would  not  be  understood  as  limiting  the  modes  by  which 
God   may    reveal   himself,  or  as  denying  the  reality  of 


164  SCRIPTURE    INFALLIBILITY. 

that  inspiration,  in  the  broader  sense,  which  is  the  sign 
of  his  presence  in  the  soul.  This  is  included  in  the 
doctrine  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  previously  stated.  How 
far  it  is  real  in  any  given  case,  and  on  what  conditions 
it  is  bestowed,  I  do  not  care  to  say.  To  state  the  doc- 
trine scientifically  is  one  thing,  to  feel  it  practically  is 
quite  another  thing.  In  some  sort  and  degree  there  is 
an  inspiration  accessible  to  all,  —  answering  to  the  fact, 
which  we  all  admit,  of  God's  spiritual  presence.  It  is 
taken  for  granted  in  every  act  of  prayer.  The  aspira- 
tion of  man  is  for  the  inspiration  of  God.  To  what 
degree  this  may  have  been  carried  in  some  of  the  sacred 
writers,  we  need  not  try  to  define  exactly  ;  but  to  me  it 
seems  not  different  in  kind.  Of  course,  it  is  quite  a  dif- 
ferent thing  from  personal  infallibility,  which  none  of 
these  writers  ever  claim.  To  a  certain  extent  it  may  be 
a  man's  guide  to  truth  ;  but  by  quickening  and  elevating 
his  native  powers,  not  by  superseding  them.  At  best 
he  is,  as  Paul  said,  a  ''  laborer  together  with  God." 
The  human  element  is  always  mixed  and  interwoven 
with  the  Divine,  in  the  texture  of  his  thought.  This 
general  fact  of  inspiration,  in  proportion  to  a  man's  faith 
and  earnestness,  I  by  no  means  deny  or  overlook. 

Having  settled  these  previous  points,  let  us  see  how 
much  beyond  them  the  Orthodox  doctrine  carries  us. 
In  its  extreme  form,  it  declares  that  every  word  in  the 
Old  and  New  Testaments  is  literally  inspired  and  infal- 
libly true  ;  that  the  writers,  men  of  various  culture  and 
at  various  times,  were  simply  blind  instruments,  at  most 
amanuenses,  to  write  verbally  from  the  dictation  of  the 
Holy  Spirit,  —  as  pipes  for  water,  or  trumpets  for 
sound,   to    carry  the    Divine    thought   into   the   human 


SCRIPTURE    INFALLIBILITY.  165 

mind  ;  that  nothing  but  the  uncertainties  of  interpreta- 
tion, and  the  slight  diversity  of  ancient  copies,  stands 
between  us  and  an  exact  transcript  of  the  mind  of  God  ; 
that  the  books  of  Scripture,  frotn  first  to  last,  are  orderly 
and  perfect  parts  of  an  harmonious,  perfect  whole  ;  that 
there  is  no  confusion,  contradiction,  or  error,  —  or  what 
seems  so  is  due  to  our  fallible  mind,  not  to  any  imper- 
fection there  ;  and  that  the  whole  array  of  history,  mira- 
cle, prophecy,  genealogy,  hymn,  or  doctrine  is  but  an 
expansion,  and  illustration,  and  confirmation  of  the  one 
great  ''  plan  of  salvation,"  which  runs  through  it  all,  and 
is  implied  in  its  every  word. 

As  to  this  extreme  form  of  statement,  I  consider  it 
rather  as  giving  men's  theory  of  what  a  revelation  ought 
to  be,  than  their  account  of  what  the  Scripture  revela- 
tion is.  There  is  nothing  in  the  Bible  to  give  us  the 
least  hint  of  such  a  doctrine.  It  would  be  easy  to  show 
its  absurdity  from  any  page  that  should  be  opened  at 
random.  Varieties  of  style,  diversities  of  account,  col- 
lision of  precept,  obscurity  of  expression,  are  each  an 
insuperable  objection  to  it.  The  evidence  is  so  plain 
and  easy  which  overthrows  it,  that  one  wonders  how 
it  could  ever  have  got  footing  among  men  anywhere. 
What  a  glance  at  any  chapter,  almost  at  any  verse, 
would  practically  overthrow,  deserves  no  serious  refu- 
tation. I  cannot  suppose  for  a  moment  that  any  one 
would  undertake  its  serious  defence. 

The  form  of  the  doctrine  with  which  we  have  to  deal, 
very  variously  modified,  is  something  like  the  following. 
It  assumes  three  degrees  or  grades  of  inspiration,  to  one 
of  which  every  passage  in  the  Bible  is  to  be  referred. 
Either  the  Holy  Spirit  exercised  a  certain  supervision 
and   restraint,    guarding  the   writers   from   any   possible 


166  SCRIPTUKE    INFALLIBILITY. 

mistake  in  narrating  events  which  they  knew  traditionally 
or  by  other  natural  means,  and  prompting  them  to  select 
those  most  important  to  be  known  ;  or  their  minds  were 
supernaturally  raised  and  strengthened  by  the  infusion  of 
a  Divine  influence,  so  that  they  could  discourse  in  a  style 
of  fancy  or  energy  vastly  beyond  the  natural  power  of 
any  man,  yet  each  according  to  the  peculiarity  of  his 
own  gifts  and  habit ;  or  lastly,  truth  was  miraculously 
revealed  to  them,  —  knowledge  of  heavenly  mysteries 
and  future  times,  —  which  otherwise  would  have  been 
for  ever  concealed  from  men. 

Thus  Inspiration  becomes  a  threefold  fact,  exhibited 
in  three  different  modes.  These  are  technically  called 
the  inspiration  of  Superintendence,  of  Elevation,  and  of 
Suggestion.  And  I  take  the  doctrine  in  this  form,  both 
because  it  is  intelligible  and  consistent,  and  because 
(expressing  "  the  latest  and  best  views")  it  is  supposed 
to  be  free  from  many  of  the  difficulties  that  beset  the 
former  theory.  It  allows  for  differences  in  style  ;  it 
relieves  the  doctrine  from  the  charge  of  maintaining 
every  detail  of  biography  or  genealogy  to  have  been 
taught  with  equal  weight  and  authority  of  Divine  dicta- 
tion with  the  most  momentous  truth ;  and  it  corresponds 
to  the  very  evident  gradation  we  find  in  the  value  of  the 
contents  of  Scripture.  Judging  merely  by  the  former 
theory,  unqualified,  we  have  no  right  to  assume  the  sol- 
emn assurance  of  a  future  life  and  judgment  to  be  of 
more  moment  to  us  than  the  number  of  slain  on  a  Philis- 
tine battle-field,  or  the  family  register  of  the  dukes  of 
Edom.  God  having  been  pleased  to  reveal  them  all,  it 
is  our  part  to  receive  them  with  the  same  unquestioning 
reverence.  To  discriminate  with  our  depraved  reason 
among  the  Divine  communications  would  be  daring  im- 


SCRIPTURE    INFALLIBILITY.  167 

piety.  This  intrinsic  difficulty  is  in  great  part  done 
away  by  the  more  careful  and  discriminating  statement 
which  I  have  given. 

But  in  the  main  characteristic  feature  these  two  state- 
ments coincide.  That  is,  they  maintain  that  the  Book 
not  only  contains  the  revelation,  but  that  it  is  the  revela- 
tion. The  obvious  apparent  advantage  of  this  doctrine 
is,  that  in  the  Bible  we  have  a  direct  communication 
from  heaven,  —  to  all  intents  and  purposes  as  direct  and 
trustworthy  as  that  made  to  the  prophets  or  apostles 
themselves.  A  book  is  put  into  our  hand,  which  we  can 
trust  imphcitly,  and  take  its  statements  as  coming  at  first 
hand  from  God  ;  having  (in  the  words  of  Locke)  "God 
for  its  author,  salvation  for  its  end,  and  truth,  without 
any  mixture  of  error,  for  its  matter."  The  sense  of  its 
authors  is  in  all  respects  infallible,  unadulterated  truth  ; 
its  statements,  of  whatever  sort,  are  authority  beyond 
denial  or  dispute  for  points  of  history,  science,  theology, 
or  morals.  And,  according  to  a  favorite  argument  of 
some  persons,  the  whole  business  of  religious  investiga- 
tion is  reduced  to  the  task  of  simple  interpretation. 
With  grammar  and  dictionary,  and  competent  knowl- 
edge of  the  Greek  and  Hebrew  tongues,  w^e  have  the 
only  possible  outfit,  and  all  we  want,  for  discovering 
every  needful  thing  of  truth  or  duty.  Reason  cannot 
prejudge,  or  science  contradict,  or  experience  and  inves- 
tigation overrule,  any  thing  that  is  set  down  in  the  Scrip- 
tures, or  by  fair  interpretation  made  out  from  them  ; 
and  verbal  or  historical  criticism  is  forestalled  when  it 
reaches  a  certain  point,  because  all  else  must  yield  to 
the  prior  assumption,  that  there  can  be  no  error  found  in 
them.  This  is  the  doctrine  which  we  have  now  to  con- 
sider.    And  I  propose  to  show,  first,  that  it  is  assumed 


168  SCRIPTURE    INFALLIBILITY. 

on  insufficient  evidence,  and  cannot  be  sustained  ;  next, 
that  it  is  not  consistently  held  by  its  advocates,  and  does 
not  answer  its  end  as  an  infallible  test  of  morals  or  doc- 
trine ;  and,  lastly,  that  it  is  hurtful  to  the  religious  char- 
acter, and  hostile  to  the  interests  of  religious  truth. 

I.  I  shall  not  repeat  what  was  urged  before,  of  the 
intrinsic  impossibility  of  establishing  such  an  infallible 
authority  by  any  course  of  argument.*  The  difficulty  of 
such  a  task  must  be  very  evident.  A  series  of  more 
than  sixty  books,  comprising  historical  records,  letters, 
proverbs,  poems,  addresses,  prayers,  in  every  style,  and 
on  all  variety  of  topics,  appearing  at  uncertain  intervals 
through  a  period  of  a  thousand  years,  and  covering  the 
history  of  near  forty  centuries,  gathered  in  their  present 
form  by  the  unratified  choice  of  men  or  the  decision  of 
unauthenticated  tribunals,  gives  us  no  handle  by  which 
we  can  even  begin  to  deal  with  the  plain  question  of  its 
inspired  authority.  It  is  hard  to  see  how  any  one,  aware 
of  the  history  and  uncertainty  of  our  present  canon,  can 
venture  to  put  all  the  books  in  a  single  category,  or 
so  much  as  approach  the  postulate  of  its  inspiration  with 
any  hope  of  sustaining  it.  But  let  that  pass.  Taking 
the  Scripture  canon  as  it  stands,  waiving  preliminary 
questions,  and  meeting  the  advocates  of  the  theory  on 
their  own  ground,  what  evidence  can  they  rely  on  ? 

The  testimony  of  Scripture  itself  ought  not,  in  strict- 
ness of  argument,  to  be  received  on  this  point  ;  certainly 
not  as  covering  the  whole  ground.  Of  course  no  book 
can  assert  its  own  paramount  authority,  until  its  credi- 
bility in  all  respects  has  been  established  ;  because,  to 
sustain  this  assertion,  it  must  appeal  (if  disputed)  to  testi- 

*  Page  30. 


SCRinURE    INFALLIBILITY.  169 

mony.  If  it  quotes  itself,  that  is  only  saying  the  same 
thing  in  other  words  ;  this  new  assertion  must  be  proved. 
If  it  quotes  other  testimony,  it  yields  the  paramount  au- 
thority in  the  very  act  of  defending  it,  —  submitting  it  to 
be  decided  on  by  external  proof,  and  so  making  that  su- 
perior. This  is  the  same  fallacy  as  that  committed  by 
Roman  Catholic  writers,  in  endeavouring  to  vindicate  by 
reasoning  the  authority  of  their  Church  as  paramount 
over  reason  itself. 

But  granting  the  entire  trustworthiness  of  Scripture 
for  all  its  deliberate  assertions  as  to  matters  of  doctrine, 
what  claim  does  it  make  to  the  inspiration  ascribed  to 
it  ?  Setting  aside  those  passages  referred  to  in  the  usual 
arguments  on  this  subject,  which  simply  speak  of  the 
special  authority  of  Christ  or  his  messengers  to  commu- 
nicate instruction,  those  which  refer  to  the  belief  of  the 
Jews  in  their  records,  those  which  speak  of  the  indwell- 
ing spirit  of  God  in  good  men  generally,  —  all  which  are 
points  admitted  on  both  sides,  —  together  with  some  which 
only  by  the  most  arbitrary  construction  can  be  made  to 
hint  at  any  thing  like  this  doctrine,  I  find  but  a  single  one 
on  which  a  plausible  argument  can  be  sustained.  It  is 
the  passage  (2  Tim.  iii.  16)  rendered,  "All  Scripture 
[is]  given  by  inspiration  of  God,  and  [is]  profitable  for 
doctrine,  for  reproof,  for  correction,  for  instruction  in 
righteousness."  Now  the  verb  "is"  is  inserted  both 
times  by  the  translator,  there  being  no  verb  at  all  in  the 
Greek  ;  and  the  word  "  and  "  is  doubtful,  so  that  we 
may  leave  it  out,  or  translate  it  "  also  "  if  we  choose, 
for  it  often  has  this  meaning  ;  and  then  our  rendering 
may  be,  if  we  will,  "  All  Scripture  (or  writing)  divinely 
inspired  is  profitable  (or  is  also  profitable)  for  doctrine," 
&c.  This  is  the  rendering  of  several  eminent  critics  ; 
15 


170  SCRIPTURE    INFALLIBILITY. 

and  the  statement,  thus  interpreted,  will  be,  that  the 
Scripture  was  not  only  Timothy's  guide  and  instructor  in 
youth,  but  would  be  his  most  effectual  help  in  his  pub- 
lic teaching.  Then  the  word  "  Scriptures  "  may  refer 
either  to  the  whole  Jewish  Scriptures  (before  alluded  to), 
or  to  the  inspired  part  of  them,  or  to  spiritual  writings 
generally,  which  are  desirable,  whatever  their  source, 
as  aids  to  a  religious  teacher  in  his  work.  It  certainly 
does  not  refer  to  the  writings  of  the  Old  and  New  Tes- 
tament as  a  whole,  which  is  the  only  point  that  affects 
the  present  argument.  And  the  word  rendered  "  given 
by  inspiration  of  God  "  (literally  "  God-breathed  ")  is 
so  loose  and  vague  in  its  meaning,  that  it  may  refer  to 
any  sort  or  degree  of  Divine  influence  exerted  on  men's 
minds,  —  to  the  inspiration  of  poetry,  of  eloquence,  of 
enthusiasm,  of  piety,  or  any  thing  which  is  acknowl- 
edged as  the  direct  action  of  God's  indwelling  spirit 
upon  the  human  mind.  And  this  word  gives  the  only 
direct  argument  to  sustain  the  Orthodox  dogma  of 
Plenary  Inspiration. 

So  far,  then,  as  it  depends  on  positive  and  extrinsic 
evidence,  the  argument  for  the  inspiration  of  the  Scrip- 
tures appears  to  be  wholly  untenable.  The  circumstan- 
ces sometimes  appealed  to  as  internal  evidence  to  bear 
it  out  —  such  as  the  momentous  nature  of  the  truth  con- 
tained, the  spiritual  depth  or  magnificence  in  style  of 
many  passages,  the  lofty  strain  of  morality  on  the  whole 
inculcated  —  are  all  such  as  we  may  and  do  most  cheer- 
fully admit  ;  but  by  no  means  affect  the  cogency  of  the 
argument.  Admitting  the  trustworthiness  of  the  books 
throughout,  there  is  still  wanted  their  own  explicit  asser- 
tion, to  establish  their  peculiar  inspiration  of  form  and 
substance  ;  and  even  this  we  find  it  impossible  to  make 


SCRIPTURE    INFALLIBILITY.  171 

out.  So  that  neither  positively,  nor  by  implication,  can 
we  obtain  any  sure  support  for  the  doctrine  in  question  ; 
while  the  multitude  of  well-known  inconsistencies,  some 
trifling,  others  grave  and  important,  are  each  enough  for 
its  complete  and  total  overthrow. 

II.  To  some  it  may  appear  as  if  the  loss  of  this  doc- 
trine of  verbal  inspiration  would  make  all  religious  truth 
doubtful,  — as  if  a  great  support  were  taken  away  from 
the  faith  of  men.  So  it  may  possibly  be  in  a  few  cases  ; 
just  as  the  proof  that  the  earth  turns  round  has  no  doubt 
unsettled  the  old  habitual  faith  of  many  minds,  and  as 
the  trust  of  many  more  in  a  special  Providence  is  over- 
whelmed by  what  science  tells  of  the  infinite  multitude 
of  the  stars  and  their  stupendous  magnitude.  But  at 
worst,  the  loss  in  this  regard  is  not  so  great  as  may  at 
first  appear.  For,  as  I  am  now  to  illustrate,  the  Bible 
has  not  been  the  source  of  certainty  and  uniformity  of 
belief,  even  among  those  who  have  held  most  strenuous- 
ly to  its  infallibility.  Indeed,  with  the  history  of  the 
Protestant  sects  before  us,  almost  all  setting  out  with 
the  same  principle  of  the  absolute  authority  of  the 
Scriptures,  and  differing  heaven-wide  in  their  conclu- 
sions on  every  single  point  of  dogmatic  opinion,  it  might 
seem  gratuitous  to  say  any  thing  on  this  topic  at  all,  or 
do  more  than  point  significantly  at  these  diversities.  My 
neighbour  finds  there  the  Trinity  and  Atonement,  which 
I  do  not.  One  discovers  the  doctrine  of  an  eternal  hell, 
another  the  absolute  equality  and  immunity  of  all  men  in 
the  future  life.  And  so  on,  through  the  whole  catalogue. 
I  cannot  account  for  these  diversities,  but  only  state 
them.  It  is  not  going  too  far  to  say,  that  the  language 
of  the  Bible,  at  least  some  part  of  it,  can  be  interpreted 
to  conform  to  any,  the  most  extravagant,  opinion  that 
ever  was  or  ever  can  be  entertained. 


172  SCRIPTURE    INFALLIBILITY. 

Now  all  this  would  be  comparatively  harmless,  unless 
for  the  previous  opinion  that  every  thing  must  be  true 
which  can  be  found  in  the  Bible.  It  is  this  idea  which 
gives  such  bigotry  and  pertinacity  to  those  who  advo- 
cate the  opposite  opinions  ;  which  makes  them  relent- 
lessly hostile  to  those  who  deny  their  favorite  point  of 
faith.  Difference  of  interpretation  is  to  them  treachery 
to  the  record.  To  overlook  the  point  they  insist  on  is 
defiance  of  God.  The  history  of  fanaticism  and  secta- 
rian bigotry  of  all  sorts  is  a  practical  demonstration  of 
what  might  seem  clear  enough  without  it,  —  that,  be  the 
Bible  as  infallible  as  you  will,  it  does  not  answer  its 
end  as  a  safe  and  unerring  guide  into  one  uniform,  har- 
monious system  of  religious  truth. 

And  this  practical  insufficiency  of  the  Bible  to  meet 
the  end  proposed  is  further  shown  in  the  little  reliance 
the  advocates  of  Orthodoxy  actually  place  upon  it. 
They  do  not  trust  the  Bible  to  go  alone.  Theoretically, 
their  point  of  radical  hostility  to  the  Roman  Church  is 
that  this  Church  does  not  put  the  Scripture  into  the 
people's  hand  without  the  priest's  interpretation.  But 
in  point  of  fact,  they  follow  the  same  course,  a  little 
modified.  Their  religious  instruction  begins  with  a  cat- 
echism, and  is  summed  up  in  a  creed.  Each,  of  course, 
purports  to  be  a  selection  and  expansion  of  what  is  ver- 
itably in  the  Bible  ;  but  the  only  catechism  and  creed  I 
ever  heard  of,  in  the  very  words  of  Scripture,  were 
those  in  some  Unitarian  churches.  And  the  only  ex- 
plicit Orthodox  creeds  I  am  acquainted  with  certainly 
make  very  little  account  indeed  of  Scripture  words. 
The  standard  commentary  makes  a  work  near  twelve 
times  the  size  of  the  Bible  itself.  I  do  not  say  that 
these  are  knowingly  and  wilfully  perversions  of,  or  sub- 


SCKIPTURE    INFALLIBILITY.  173 

stilutes  for,  the  doctrines  found  in  the  Bible  ;  but  cei'- 
tainly  they  are  very  curious  illustrations  of  the  maxim, 
so  often  quoted  from  Chillingworlh,  that  "  the  Bible  and 
the  Bible  only  is  the  religion  of  Protestants."  Instead 
of  "  the  Bible,"  you  have  the  artificial  and  compact 
statement  of  a  creed  ;  instead  of  "  the  Bible  only," 
an  enormous  commentary  expanded  to  many  times  its 
volume.  Not  that  the  Scriptures  are  not  circulated  too  ; 
this  they  are,  assiduously,  indefatigably,  conscientiously. 
But  with  the  continual  accompaniment  of  exposition, 
the  painful  and  elaborate  proof  of  doctrine,  the  fore- 
stalling of  each  person's  judgment,  so  far  as  may  be,  by 
previously  formed  opinion,  we  see  how  little  "  the  suf- 
ficiency of  the  Scriptures  and  the  right  of  private  judg- 
ment "  are  practically  relied  on,  even  by  those  whose 
creed  should  make  it  impious  thus  to  step  (as  it  were) 
between  the  inquiring  mind  and  the  Deity,  who  is  mak- 
ing to  it  his  solemn  personal  communication. 

Thus  the  two  tests  which  we  have  the  clearest  right 
to  apply  —  uniformity  of  opinion  and  habitual  practical 
reliance  on  the  written  word  —  are  found  to  fail  utterh', 
w^hen  applied  to  men's  profession  of  belief  in  Scripture 
inspiration.  A  third  point  is  still  more  striking,  though 
it  is  one  which  not  only  the  advocates  of  this  theory, 
but  many  others,  would  probably  be  reluctant  to  admit. 
It  is,  that,  not  only  in  the  adoption  of  theological  opinion, 
but  in  their  practical  vieivs  of  duty^  they  judge  the 
Scriptures  by  their  own  reason,  instead  of  submitting  it 
to  be  judged  by  them.  A  difficult  and  constrained  in- 
terpretation is  put  arbitrarily  upon  many  passages,  to 
square  them  with  the  received  standard  of  right  and 
wrong.  Some  parts,  of  an  ascetic  and  severe  morality, 
are  explained  away.  Such  doctrines  as  non-resistance, 
15* 


174  SCRIPTURE    INFALLIBILITY. 

passive  obedience  to  rulers,  the  wrongfulness  of  prop- 
erty, the  superior  merit  of  celibacy,  and  the  commu- 
nity of  goods,*  are  set  aside,  though  quite  as  literally 
and  expressly  taught  as  any  theological  dogma,  because 
it  is  assumed  beforehand  that  to  believe  them  is  fanat- 
ical. And  the  unqualified  declaration  of  the  perfect 
moral  system  taught  throughout  the  Scripture,  and  so 
getting  an  express  Divine  sanction  from  it,  practically 
amounts  to  this  :  that  the  good  parts  of  the  moral  doc- 
trine of  the  Bible  are  regarded  as  inspired,  —  that  is, 
what  conscience  and  reason,  our  ultim.ate  authority,  pro- 
nounce to  be  good,  —  while  the  imperfect  parts  are  kept 
back  as  far  as  possible,  and  studiously  overlooked. 

There  is  no  such  thing  as  honest  men,  of  sound  mind, 
submitting  their  honest  sense  of  right  and  wrong  to  the 
requirements  of  a  book.  It  would  be  a  great  calamity 
if  it  were  so  ;  but  it  is  a  calamity  that  can  never  happen 
to  any  large  extent.  No  doubt  men's  reverence  for 
Scripture  falls  in  with  and  enhances  their  reverence  for 
the  right,  —  nay,  even  evokes  that  slumbering  reverence 
sometimes,  and  makes  them  conscientious  men.  But 
when  the  two  exist  together  and  come  in  collision,  as 
they  often  do,  it  is  Scripture  that  always  yields.  It  is 
pliable  as  wax  in  the  hands  either  of  earnest  conviction 
or  of  obstinate  prejudice.  Thus,  if  there  is  any  one 
thing  expressly  forbidden  in  terms  by  the  higher  morality 
of  Scripture,  it  certainly  seems  to  be  the  act  of  fighting. 
Yet  when  the  occasion  came,  the  written  law  has  always 
yielded  before  the  dictate  of  common  sense,  or  the  sup- 
posed necessity  of  the  case.  Every  church  has  conse- 
crated the  banner  of  fighting  men,  and  sent  chaplains  to 

*  Matt.  V.  39;  1  Pet.  ii.  13;  Matt.  vi.  19;  1  Cor.  vii.  7,  8;  x.  24. 


SCRIPTURE    INFALLIBILITY.  175 

the  battle-field.  And  the  solitary  exceptions  to  this  in 
appearance  are  not  so  in  fact.  They  are  cases  where 
the  personal  conviction,  secret  or  avowed,  has  tallied 
with  the  sense  of  Scripture,  and  has  brought  men  to  re- 
nounce the  profession  of  arms,  and  undergo  pain,  ridi- 
cule, or  death,  rather  than  raise  a  hand  in  self-defence. 
I  do  not  say  the  Bible  has  not  done  much  —  doubtless 
more  than  all  other  books  put  together  —  to  educate  the 
general  sense  of  right  and  wrong.  But  I  do  say,  that 
where  that  sense  has  come  in  collision  with  the  letter  of 
its  precepts,  even  among  those  most  sincere  and  earnest 
in  professing  to  believe  its  Divine  authority  in  every 
word,  it  has  been  the  Bible  that  was  compelled  to  yield. 
Where  it  has  dictated  to  blind,  unreasoning  obedience, 
there  has  resulted  only  extravagance  and  harm. 

III.  It  seems  to  be  clearly  established,  from  what  has 
gone  before,  both  that  there  is  no  evidence  to  sustain  the 
complete  and  infallible  inspiration  of  the  Scriptures,  and 
that,  even  if  there  were,  they  do  not  serve  the  purpose 
of  a  uniform  and  trustworthy  guide,  whether  to  belief  or 
duty.  But  if  these  were  all,  I  should  not  feel  called  on 
to  express  so  emphatically  my  dissent  from  it.  If  the 
doctrine  were  simply  harmless,  it  might  be  better  to  let 
it  alone,  nor  disturb  its  easy  resting-place  in  so  many 
minds.  But  no  opinion  can  be  harmless,  which  misstates 
and  overlays  the  true  foundation  of  our  faith.  There 
are  evils  and  dangers  associated  with  this  opinion,  always 
more  or  less  apparent,  and  sometimes  pressing.  To 
these  I  briefly  alluded  in  the  beginning  of  my  remarks  ; 
and  I  would  now  illustrate  them  more  fully,  —  showing,  in 
other  words,  that  "  it  is  hurtful  to  the  religious  character, 
and  hostile  to  the  interests  of  religious  truth." 

The  first  obvious  mischief  in  the  claim  of  any  writing 


176  SCRIPTURE    INFALLIBILITY. 

to  Strict  infallibility  is,  that  it  cramps  the  action  of  the 
mind,  discourages  free  criticism  and  inquiry,  by  which 
alone  truth  can -be  independently  established,  and  so  gen- 
erates a  narrow  and  jealous  dogmatism.  Especially  is 
this  the  case  with  writings  like  these,  so  diversified  in  in- 
tention, so  various  in  style,  representing  ideas  so  wholly 
different  as  they  must  be,  if  only  from  their  variety  of 
age.  This  objection,  it  is  evident,  does  not  apply  to 
the  circumstance  of  having  some  one  point  or  order  of 
truths  declared  authoritatively,  and  put  beyond  the  reach 
of  question  or  denial.  Such  truths  are  the  Being  and 
Providence  of  God,  the  Immortality  of  the  soul,  the  re- 
ality of  Judgment,  —  truths  which  some  accept  on  the 
express  word  of  an  inspired  messenger,  others  as  being 
essentially  involved  in  the  constitution  of  our  soul.  Prin- 
ciples of  belief  such  as  these,  primordial  truths,  simple 
and  grand,  do  not  of  course  stand  in  the  way  of  the 
mind's  progress,  or  any  amount  of  spiritual  liberty,  and 
may  even  be  held  essential  to  any  high  degree  of  either. 
But  the  miscellaneous  declarations  of  a  multitude  of 
books,  like  those  included  in  our  Bible,  cannot  be  taken, 
as  a  whole,  as  ultimate  and  indisputable  facts,  without  the 
harm  to  which  I  have  alluded.  Men's  minds  will  differ; 
and  this  difference  will  give  occasion  for  endless  reproach 
and  bigotry.  It  would  seem  invidious  to  press  the  illus- 
trations of  this,  which  must  spontaneously  occur  to  every 
one. 

A  still  greater  danger  results  when  the  mind  begins  to 
investigate,  and  comes,  as  it  inevitably  must,  in  collision 
with  statements  in  these  books.  The  old  battle  between 
science  and  revelation  is  renewed  at  every  step,  and  is 
not  over  yet.  Two  or  three  centuries  ago,  men  seriously 
argued  that  the  earth  could  not  be  spherical,  because  the 


SCRIPTURE    INFALLIBILITY.  177 

Bible  spoke  of  its  ends  and  corners.  The  wide-spread 
belief  in  the  Jewish  or  Chaldee  mythology  of  evil  spirits 
is  another  example  of  a  kindred  sort.  To  some  minds, 
the  obscure  hyperbole  quoted  from  the  unknown  book  of 
Jasher,  —  that,  at  the  command  of  Joshua,  the  Hebrew 
chieftain,  the  sun  and  moon  stood  still  in  the  vale  of 
Ajalon,  —  outweighs  the  plainest  evidence  of  astronomy 
as  to  the  monstrous  incredibility  of  such  a  statement  ;  and 
the  war  between  the  geologists  and  the  interpreters  of 
Genesis  has  within  a  few  years  broken  out  afresh.  The 
collision  is  most  unfortunate  ;  but  we  see  plainly  enough 
which  side  must  be  the  sufierer.  Natural  science  marches 
steadily  on,  regardless  of  the  protest  of  commentators  ; 
and  the  positions  it  occupies,  one  by  one,  are  hopelessly 
impregnable.  There  is  nothing  for  this  to  fear  now,  as 
in  the  days  of  Galileo  ;  the  peril  is  all  the  other  way. 
And  that  is  a  real  peril.  The  old  protest  of  the  dogma- 
tists, "  If  one  part  is  given  up,  how  do  you  know  that 
any  of  it  is  true  ?  "  now  comes  back  upon  them  with 
terrible  force.  Very  many  parts  are  proved  to  be  unten- 
able, even  by  the  showing  of  the  book  itself.  They 
must  be  given  up.  The  dogma  that  would  maintain 
them  once,  being  too  weak  for  this,  may  yet  have 
strength  enough  left  to  bring  a  doubt  over  the  spiritual 
truth  itself  in  many  minds.  I  have  heard  of  a  sailor  in  a 
shipwreck,  who  lashed  himself  to  the  anchor,  and  was 
drowned.  So  with  this  dogma,  which  has  possibly  been 
the  anchor  of  some  men's  faith,  but  is  its  destruction 
now.  If  the  question  comes.  Do  you  stake  your  relig- 
ious hope  on  the  authenticity  of  such  a  book,  or  the 
infalllbHity  of  such  a  statement.'' — it  must  be  answered 
one  way  or  another.  Orthodoxy  or  natural  science,  one 
or  the   other,   must   break   down.      Science  can  stand 


178  SCRIPTURE    INFALLIBILITY. 

alone  now  ;  and  as  to  pure  and  spiritual  Christianity, 
there  is  no  fear  for  that.  The  only  danger  is  from  that 
system  which  has  studiously  wrapped  up  men's  holiest 
hopes  with  dogmas  that  cannot  be  sustained.  These 
dogmas  must  perish  in  their  own  time.  Take  Ortho- 
doxy at  its  word,  and  the  faith  and  hope  of  humanity 
should  be  wrecked  and  perish  with  them  ! 

I  have  no  fear  that  the  Christian  faith  will  perish  so 
easily  as  that ;  but  in  the  very  steps  by  which  it  would 
assert  itself,  it  gives  another  evidence  of  the  mischief 
suffered  from  that  doctrine.  To  keep  the  unalterable 
words  of  Scripture,  they  must  be  harmonized  with  the 
changing  belief;  hence  casuistry  and  subterfuge  without 
end.  A  spiritual  sense  must  be  forced,  to  supersede  the 
plain  meaning  of  the  words.  Verbal  subtilties,  remote 
analogies,  which  the  writers  never  dreamed  of,  must  be 
devised,  not  to  evolve  the  Bible  sense,  but  to  square  it 
at  any  hazard  with  the  sense  of  men.  This  sometimes 
degenerates  into  positive  and  pitiful  dishonesty,  playing 
fast  and  loose  with  the  clear  meaning  of  the  books,  as  a 
dishonest  counsel  forces  the  letter  of  the  law,  to  over- 
bear the  clear  proof  of  his  client's  guilt.  Enormous 
erudition  is  brought  in,  to  bear  out  and  justify  some  petty 
point  of  Biblical  interpretation  ;  and  what  was  assumed 
as  the  unyielding  mould  to  shape  the  material  of  men's 
belief  becomes  passive  and  inert,  to  take  what  shape 
and  hue  they  will.  And  this  casuistry  of  verbal  criticism 
seems  to  be  inseparable  from  the  pertinacious  adherence 
to  forms  of  language,  while  allowing  the  smallest  measure 
of  free  speculation  or  investigation  to  the  mind.  As  was 
before  shown  of  moral  precepts,  so  here  of  intellectual 
opinion,  the  profession  of  deference  to  the  written  word 
is  contradicted  at  every  step  of  its  practical  application. 


SCRIPTURE    INFALLIBILITY.  179 

That  llie  freest  and  boldest  thinking  should  at  times 
come  round  and  coincide  remarkably  in  earnest  and 
religious  minds  with  Bible  passages,  whose  meaning  was 
obscure  till  this  side-light  was  thrown  on  it  from  personal 
experience,  is  a  noble  testimony  to  the  good  faith  and 
spiritual  depth  of  a  large  part  of  these  remarkable  writ- 
ings. The  hymns  of  David  and  the  Epistles  of  Paul 
answer  back  to  the  earnest  thought  of  the  simplest  and 
the  wisest.  But  this  spontaneous  and  living  testimony, 
while  prevented  on  the  one  hand  by  a  scornful  spirit, 
that  cavils  at  the  Bible,  is  equally  prevented  on  the 
other  by  the  strict  and  literal  adhesion  to  the  form, 
which  suppresses  the  free  development  of  the  mind  that 
might  come  round  to  that  coincidence.  At  least,  its 
value  as  testimony  is  mainly  gone.  It  must  be  free,  or 
it  will  be  worthless.  What  w^e  would  accept  is  "  the 
New  Testament,  not  of  the  letter,  but  of  the  spirit; 
for  the  letter  killeth,  but  the  spirit  giveth  life." 

And  finally,  not  only  have  fanaticism  and  evil  pas- 
sion of  every  sort  found  their  pretext  and  coloring  in 
portions  of  these  ancient  books  ;  not  only  has  the  whole 
-history  of  intolerance,  in  its  pitiful  superstitions  and 
bitter  persecutions,  shown  the  harm  of  taking  the  word, 
instead  of  the  spirit,  to  judge  o])inion  by  ;  not  only  have 
fierce  controversies  been  w^aged  on  minute  points  of 
opinion,  and  the  merciless  abuses  of  religion  under  the 
rule  of  bigots  found  a  justification  in  the  Jewish  his- 
tory, —  as  the  Puritans  slaughtered  their  foes  by  exam- 
ple of  Samuel,  who  hewed  Agag  in  pieces  before  the 
Lord,  and  as  persecutors  have  always  found  the  prece- 
dent they  wanted  in  the  dealings  between  the  prophets 
and  the  idolaters  ;  but  a  worse  evil  remains  behind,  at 
least  one  more  perilous  at  the  present  day.      The  im- 


180  SCRIPTURE    INFALLIBILIT.Y. 

perfect  morality  of  an  uncivilized  age  is  allowed  to  dic- 
tate to  the  conscience  educated  under  all  the  influences 
of  Christianity.  Special  pleadings  for  special  wrongs 
are  founded  on  the  unauthorized  application  of  precepts, 
and  the  gratuitous  assumption  of  moral  infallibility.  It  is 
held  that  the  practice  of  three  thousand  years  ago  gives 
a  standard  which  one  is  excused  for  not  endeavouring 
to  surpass  at  the  present  day.  The  ritual  observance  of 
the  Jewish  Sabbath  (for  infringing  which  the  stern  camp 
discipline  of  Moses  stoned  a  man  to  death)  is  made  the 
rule  for  keeping  the  Christian  festival  of  Sunday.  All 
foundation  of  right  is  point-blank  denied,  except  the 
edict  given  for  the  Hebrew  national  law.  iVrbitrary  and 
capricious  selection  is  inevitably  made  among  the  pre- 
cepts, while  the  right  principle  of  selection  is  disre- 
garded. And  the  social  evils,  which  to  the  Christian 
mind  stand  as  signs  of  a  rude  and  barbarous,  or  at  least 
imperfect,  state,  —  slavery,  war,  extreme  inevitable  pov- 
erty, and  needless  cruelties  in  the  administration  of  jus- 
tice, —  are  seriously  defended  from  Jewish  precedents, 
and  maintained  to  be,  not  only  inseparable  from  the  con- 
dition of  human  society,  but  sanctioned  and  consecrated- 
by  the  express  command  of  God. 

All  other  evils  seem  light  in  comparison  with  this, 
falsifying  as  it  does  the  basis  of  morality,  and  deadening 
the  conscience,  which  should  be  a  constant  and  living 
force,  to  be  the  bondman  of  a  creed.  This  is  against  its 
nature,  which  is  to  overcome  all  wrong,  and  cajTy  on 
the  work  of  Christianity  in  the  soul  and  in  the  world. 
For  this  there  must  be  intellectual  and  moral  liberty. 
Things  should  be  judged  by  their  own  merits,  or  ex- 
culpated by  the  necessities  of  the  given  case  ;  never 
defended  or  accused  by  the  letter  of  some  obsolete  sane- 


SCRIPTURE    INFALLIBILITY.  181 

lion  or  penal  law,  applying  only  to  a  remote  and  barbar- 
ous age.  The  judgment  Jesus  passed,  in  denouncing 
one  by  one  several  of  the  express  provisions  of  the  Old 
Testament,  is  no  more  than  what  every  honest  man  must 
do,  on  peril  of  sacrificing  his  sincerity  and  tampering 
with  his  failh.  And  this  is  precisely  what  the  doctrine 
of  Scriptural  infallibility  renders  impossible.  It  cannot 
stand,  accordingly,  with  the  highest  and  best  type  of 
practical  Christianity. 

I  have  been  forced  to  pass  so  rapidly  over  this  state- 
ment of  the  harm  wi'ought  by  this  false  doctrine,  as  I 
consider  it,  that  I  almost  fear  my  real  position  may  be 
misunderstood.  Let  me  say,  then,  in  conclusion,  that  it 
is  only  the  false  view  of  Scripture  authority  I  contend 
against,  not  the  true  use  and  value  of  the  sacred  books. 
On  the  forced  and  groundless  claim  of  literal  infallibility, 
they  are  open  to  all  the  objections  I  have  urged.  But, 
whether  we  take  them  on  their  loftiest  claim,  as  the 
record,  in  the  main  authentic,  of  God's  revelation  to 
mankind  ;  whether  we  consider  their  central  point  of  dig- 
nity, in  the  narrative  of  our  Saviour's  life,  and  his  apos- 
tles' exposition  of  his  truth  ;  or  whether  we  think  only 
of  their  intrinsic  interest  as  the  religious  autobiography 
of  the  human  race,  —  the  deposit  of  the  history,  the 
conflicts,  the  doubts,  the  prayers,  and  profoundest  spir- 
itual experience  of  the  most  earnest  men,  —  the  suggester 
of  duty,  the  quickener  of  conscience,  the  assurance  of 
immortal  faith  to  so  many  ;  —  in  whatever  way  we  view 
these  writings,  we  cannot  overlook,  w^e  cannot  overstate, 
their  worth  to  us.  Misstate  it  we  may,  by  insisting  on 
the  dogmatic  assumption  of  their  infallibility  ;  and  how 
deep  the  wrong  thus  inflicted  on  them,  I  have  feebly 
endeavoured  to  show.  My  language  has  not  been 
16 


182  SCRIPTURE    INFALLIBILITY. 

Stronger  than  that  of  Paul,  who  says,  "  The  letter  kill- 
eth,  while  the  spirit  giveth  hfe";  or  than  that  of  Jesus, 
who  says,  *'  Ye  have  made  the  connmandment  of  God  of 
none  effect  through  your  tradition."  Nor  does  any  in- 
jury to  the  words  of  Scripture  seem  to  me  so  deep  as 
that  injury  to  the  sense  and  spirit,  which  I  have  endeav- 
oured to  illustrate  in  my  examination  of  that  whole 
scheme  of  theology,  founded  on  a  perversion  of  both 
words  and  spirit.  But  I  have  said  enough,  while  we 
accept  the  Scripture  as  indeed  the  word  of  God, 
to  show  our  reasons  for  refusing  to  accept  it  as  liter- 
ally   "  THE    WORDS    OF    GOD." 


DISCOURSE    IX. 


HISTORY  AND  POSITION  OF  ORTHODOXY. 

IT  WAS  NEEDFUL  FOR  ME  TO  WRITE  UNTO  YOU,  AND  EXHORT  YOU 
THAT  YE  SHOULD  EARNESTLY  CONTEND  FOR  THE  FAITH  WHICH 
WAS    ONCE    DELIVERED    UNTO    THE    SAINTS. — Jude  3. 

Two  portions  of  the  plan  I  had  in  view  are  now  com- 
pleted. Throughout  the  course  of  argument  presented, 
I  have  endeavoured  to  do  strict  and  even  justice  to 
the  opinions  under  examination.  Taking  the  term  Or- 
thodoxy as  signifying  the  prevalent  system  of  modern 
Protestant  theology,  I  have  tried  to  characterize  fairly 
its  main  features,  to  select  the  strong  points  rather  than 
the  weak  ones,  to  take  the  most  plausible  statement 
which  seems  truly  to  represent  the  doctrine,  and  to 
waive  the  advantage  of  making  the  system  as  such  re- 
sponsible for  the  inconsistencies  and  extravagance  of  its 
advocates.  Whatever  incongruity  has  been  shown  to 
exist  in  it  is  essential  to  the  nature  of  the  scheme  itself. 
It  is  the  course  of  thought  as  a  whole  that  I  have  di- 
rected your  attention  to,  and  not  the  unskilful  statement 
of  its  several  parts.  The  essential  idea,  not  its  acci- 
dental developments  and  perhaps  perversions,  has  made 
the  ground  of  every  thing  I  have  said.     The  great  merit 


184  HISTORY    OF    ORTHODOXY. 

of  the  system,  let  me  repeat  once  more,  is  the  merit  of 
consistency.  Its  strength  is  as  a  work  of  logic.  The 
fundamental  principle  involved  in  it  may  be  true  or  false, 
—  my  aim  has  been  to  prove  it  false,  —  but  whatever  it 
is,  the  whole  is  honestly  deduced  from  it,  and  the  whole 
must  be  judged  according  to  it.  In  this  view,  and  in 
this  only,  I  have  considered  the  several  points  as  they 
successively  came  up.  And  the  result  of  our  inquiry 
seems  to  be,  that  the  evidence  for  that  system  of  re- 
ligious belief  depending  on  this  principle  is  insufficient  ; 
while  its  character  is  such,  that,  except  on  the  most 
irresistible  and  overwhelming  proof,  we  shall  be  forced 
to  reject  it. 

In  the  review  which  has  been  presented,  I  have  spo- 
ken generally  in  my  own  name  only,  and  have  said  noth- 
ing as  the  representative  of  a  sect.  No  others  need  be 
held  responsible  for  statements  to  which  they  might  only 
assent  in  part.  So  far  as  was  possible,  I  have  sought  to 
present  a  perfectly  fair  and  perfectly  independent  exam- 
ination of  principles,  not  caring  to  gain  assent  to  every 
statement,  so  much  as  wishing  to  set  men  thinking  for 
themselves.  For  the  present,  this  seems  to  be  the  best 
office  of  theological  discussion.  Let  men  think  for 
themselves,  sincerely  and  in  earnest,  and  God's  prov- 
idence in  the  realm  of  thought  will  bring  about  a  better 
result  than  we  could  dictate  or  foresee. 

I  come  now  to  the  third  and  final  division  of  my 
course.  Having  hitherto  been  engaged  in  the  discussion 
of  fundamental  principles,  and  their  development  in  the 
series  of  doctrines  making  up  the  Orthodox  system,  I 
am  now  to  show  how  it  was  that  system  came  to  bis  re- 
ceived, and  oppose  to  it,  more  distinctly  than  has  yet 
been  done,  the  principles  which  have  been  all  along  im- 


HISTORY    OF    ORTHODOXY.  185 

plied.  The  history  of  Orthodox  opinion,  and  an  ex- 
hibition of  the  main  features  of  Liberal  Christianity,  will 
form  the  topics  of  my  two  concluding  lectures.  Not 
that  I  can  pretend  to  give  a  full  and  satisfactory  account 
of  either.  Whole  lives  of  historical  investigation,  and 
the  treasures  of  amazing  erudition,  have  been  spent  in 
the  still  unfinished  work  of  the  first  ;  and  the  elements 
about  us  are  far  too  incoherent  and  shapeless  to  let  us 
state  the  last  with  any  fulness.  Still,  to  make  a  few 
points  prominent  may  serve  our  purpose,  by  enabling  us 
to  see  our  object  more  distinctly  and  from  a  better  point 
of  view. 

The  objection  in  principle  and  defect  in  proof  as  re- 
gards the  doctrines  w-e  have  been  considering  have  been 
long  and  painfully  felt  by  many,  who  at  the  same  time 
were  withheld,  by  a  secret  dread,  from  disowning  the 
faith  as  they  were  taught  it.  Some,  as  is  well  known, 
have  returned  to  the  bosom  of  the  Roman  Church,  to 
find  that  assurance  which  on  Protestant  principles  they 
must  have  lost.  Some  have  rejected  the  doctrines  them- 
selves, and  remained  floating  between  a  cold  negative 
belief  and  the  obscure  rudiments  of  a  more  liberal  faith, 
—  unless  the  confirmed  habit  of  skepticism  should  keep 
them  from  having  any  faith  at  all.  And  among  those 
who  adhere  strictly  to  the  system  generally  professed,  it 
is  not  too  much  to  say  that  the  strongest  argument  with 
them  is  the  prestige  of  a  supposed  antiquity.  They  re- 
ceive it,  because  to  them  it  represents  the  faith  of  past 
generations  ;  because  it  is  associated  with  the  love,  and 
hope,  and  trust  of  many  who  have  lived  and  died  pro- 
fessing it  ;  and  because  it  is  taken  for  granted  to  be  the 
doctrine  of  the  primitive  Church  of  Christ.  In  main- 
taining this,  they  suppose  themselves  to  be  "  contending 
16* 


186  HISTORY    OF    ORTHODOXY. 

for  the  faith  once  delivered  to  the  saints."  And  it  is 
the  dim  apprehension  of  cutting  themselves  off  from  the 
Christian  communion  of  the  early  time,  and  embarking 
at  hazard  in  new  heresies,  alien  to  the  early  faith,  which, 
more  than  any  thing  else,  puts  a  check  on  the  spontane- 
ous movement  of  their  own  independent  thought.  This  is 
the  prejudice  which,  so  far  as  I  may,  I  wish  to  remove, 
in  the  course  of  the  present  remarks. 

Each  Christian  church  considers  itself  to  have  the 
original  and  essential  Christian  faith.  To  admit  it  to 
be  otherwise  vi^ould  be,  not  only  to  plead  guilty  to  the 
charge  of  heresy,  but  to  discredit  any  particular  propri- 
ety in  its  claim  to  the  name  of  Christian.  From  Cath- 
olic to  Quaker,  each  assumes  itself  to  be  the  true 
Church,  in  all  essentials,  after  the  model  of  the  first  ; 
from  high  Trinitarian  to  Rationalist  or  Socinian,  each 
ascribes  to  Jesus  precisely  the  measure  of  dignity 
which,  in  his  reading  of  the  Gospel,  he  understands  him 
to  claim,  and  which  therefore  rightfully  belongs  to  him. 
Each  receives  in  his  own  way  the  account  of  that  great- 
est historical  event,  —  the  introduction  of  Christianity 
to  the  world,  —  and  therefore  each  has,  or  thinks  he  has, 
the  word  of  Scripture  on  his  side.  No  one  party  has  a 
right  to  charge  another  with  doing  wilful  dishonor  to  the 
Scriptures  ;  no  one  can  make  exclusive  claim  of  rever- 
ence and  fidelity  to  Christ.  My  whole  course  of  argu- 
ment has  gone  to  show  how  fully  (as  in  all  sincerity  we 
think)  the  Christian  records  bear  out  our  exposition  of 
the  faith.  I  need  not  press  this  matter  further.  Each, 
of  course,  assumes  that  the  Testament,  rightly  inter- 
preted, is  on  his  side. 

I  have  represented  the  Orthodox  system  hitherto  as 


HISTORY    OF    ORTHODOXY.  187 

a  complete  and  consummate  whole,  —  as  a  consistent 
thing  throughout,  with  its  parts  mutually  dependent,  and 
logically  bound  together.  So  it  is,  as  wrought  out  grad- 
ually, and  defended  by  the  succession  of  able  thinkers, 
who,  since  the  Reformation  especially,  have  labored  in 
its  behalf.  But  -so  it  was  not  at  first.  Its  symmetry 
and  completeness  did  not  come  all  at  once.  It  is  an 
artificial  and  complicated  structure,  forced  into  harmony 
w^ith  the  Christian  records,  rather  than  naturally  deduced 
from  them.  Though  to  the  common  eye  it  bears  the 
mark  of  high  antiquity,  yet,  in  a  wider,  historical  view, 
it  is  only  one  of  the  transient  forms  in  which  men  have 
clothed  the  one  indestructible  element  of  religious  truth. 
To  account  for  its  existence,  though  Imperfectly,  seems 
a  necessary  part  of  the  task  of  its  fair  examination.  I 
propose,  therefore,  to  consider  briefly  the  process  by 
w^iich  it  was  developed,  and  its  position  now.  My  re- 
marks will  relate,  first,  to  the  previously  existing  materi- 
als, or  elements,  out  of  which  the  system  was  construct- 
ed, together  with  the  changes  made  from  time  to  time  in 
its  essential  character  ;  and  finally,  to  those  circumstan- 
ces in  its  actual  position  which  indicate  that  it  will  be 
soon  superseded  and  outgrown. 

I.  I  am  very  far  from  pretending  to  have  enough  of 
profound  and  accurate  learning,  even  if  this  were  the 
right  time  and  place,  to  trace  the  rudiments  of  the  doc- 
trinal scheme  in  question  among  the  various  religions  and 
philosophical  schools  of  antiquity.  In  the  discussion 
of  the  Trinity  and  the  Atonement,  I  briefly  alluded 
to  some  of  these  sources,  showing  how  the  essential 
character  of  those  doctrines  has  varied  from  time  to 
time,  —  their  mode  of  interpretation  and  their  place  in 
the  system  being  modified  by  the  turn  of  thought  in  sue- 


188  HISTORY    OF    ORTHODOXY. 

cessive  centuries.*  And  as  to  the  essential  idea  implied 
throughout  the  whole,  which  is,  that  a  sacrifice  or  equiv- 
alent  is  required  to  satisfy  Divine  justice^  and  enable 
man  to  escape  the  doom  of  infinite  and  hopeless  misery, 
I  have  not  hesitated  to  call  it  both  heathen  in  its  origin 
and  unchristian  in  its  spirit.  It  is  rather  a  matter  of 
curious  erudition  than  of  practical  utihty,  to  trace  out 
the  remote  source  of  the  stream.  I  trust  enough  has 
been  said  to  show  that  the  Scriptures  are  not  that 
source  :  and,  further  than  this,  a  very  few  words  will 
suffice  to  the  end  I  have  in  view.  This  is,  to  illus- 
trate how  the  fundamental  ideas  in  old  religions,  pagan 
and  Jewish,  entered  into  the  way  of  thinking  among  the 
early  Christians,  and  affected  the  tone  of  their  theology. 
Christianity  itself  I  shall  assume  to  be  the  simple,  pure, 
religious  faith  taught  by  Christ  ;  implied  in  all  his  teach- 
ings, and  in  the  belief  of  all  religious  men  ;  received 
whether  on  his  express  authority,  or  from  sympathy  with 
his  spirit.  For  the  present  I  shall  content  myself  with 
this  definition  of  it,  my  object  being  to  show  how  foreign 
elements  were  superinduced  upon  that  faith,  till  its  prim- 
itive character  was  to  a  great  degree  obscured  and- 
changed. 

It  would  be  a  great  mistake  to  suppose  that  there  ever 
was  a  time  of  doctrinal  unanimity  among  the  disciples  of 
Christ.  The  pleasant  hypothesis  of  a  primitive  undi- 
vided church  vanishes  as  soon  as  we  come  in  sight  of  the 
period  when  it  is  supposed  to  have  existed.  That,  at  a 
particular  point  of  time,  "  the  multitude  were  of  one 
heart  and  one  mind,"  is  a  proof  that  one  common  senti- 
ment bound  them  very  close  together,  and  impelled  them 

*  Pages  56  and  93. 


HISTORY    OF    ORTHODOXY.  189 

to  one  earnest  work  ;  but  by  no  means  shows  tliat  they 
were   agreed  even   on   any  single   recognized    principle 
of  belief  and  action,  consciously  accepted  and  deliber- 
ately professed.     Not  theory,  but  practice,  not  talk  so 
much  as  work,  made  their  proper  province.      The  apos- 
tles themselves  seem  hardly  to  have  had  a  glimpse  of  the 
spiritual  design  of  Jesus  till  after  his  final  departure  ;  and 
the  first  church  action  that  was  taken,  the  appointing  of 
deacons,  was  in  consequence  of  division  and  complaint. 
A  few  years  after  came  the  great  controversy  on  cir- 
cumcision, or  the  ritual,  to  settle  the  point  whether  the 
Christian  Church  was  to  be  a  Jewish  sect  or  an  inde- 
pendent body.      The  apostles  laid  down  no  rules  infal- 
libly, but  debated,  and  reasoned,  and  differed,  and  acted 
independently,  like  other  men.     Paul  "  withstood  Peter 
to   the    face,   because   he   was   to   be    blamed."       The 
church  at  Corinth  seems  to  have  been  split  in  four  par- 
ties, that  of  Paul,  Apollos,  Cephas,  and  Christ.      Two 
thirds  of  the  later  Testament  writings  are  made  up  of 
controversial    discussion.       James   warns   against    over- 
statements of  the  spiritual  party  ;  Peter  thinks  that  Paul 
has  WTitten  '^  some  things  hard  to  be  understood  ";  and 
Jude  exhorts  the  brethren  "  to  contend  earnestly  for  the 
faith   once   delivered    to  the  saints."      Now,    all   these 
things  prove  conclusively  that  there  never  was  a  period 
of  doctrinal  linity  and  harmony  among  Christians.      Such 
a  primitive  state  is  purely  imaginary,  —  men's  fond  dream 
of  what  ought  to  be,  not  their  sober  knowledge  of  what 
is  or  ever  was.     And  yet  Christianity  was  a  real  and  a 
vital  thing,  —  of  power  to  make  all  these  different  men 
live  and  act  and  hope  and  suffer  and  pray  together,  and 
call  themselves  by  one  common  name.     If  it  was  not  a 
doctrinal  system,  received  alike  by  all,  what  was  it  ?     It 


190  HISTORY    OF    ORTHODOXY. 

could  have  been  only  what  I  said  before,  —  the  simple, 
pure,  religious  faith,  which  men  took  at  the  word  and 
life  of  Christ.  A  dogmatic  system  of  opinion  it  certainly 
was  not.  And  the  only  common  element  we  can  detect 
among  the  various  minds  of  the  first  disciples  is  the  sim- 
ple spiritual  truth,  the  religion  of  reverence,  trust,  and 
love,  which  we  call  pure  Christianity,  as  distinct  from 
that  of  sects  and  creeds.  This  is  found  in  every  sect,  pre- 
supposed in  every  creed.  It  is  the  primitive,  essential, 
permanent,  indestructible  element,  through  all  diversities 
of  behef,  —  "  the  faith  once  delivered  to  the  saints." 

The  principles  or  universal  truths  which  Jesus  taught 
—  the  love  and  providence  of  God,  the  sacredness  of 
human  life,  the  standard  of  perfect  purity,  the  retribu- 
tion of  the  world  to  come  —  cannot  by  any  possibility 
be  reduced  to  a  dogmatic  system,  claiming  to  be  infal- 
lible and  complete,  without  violating  their  essential  char- 
acter, and  transcending  the  plain  meaning  of  his  words. 
Still,  it  is  one  of  the  necessities  of  the  human  mind  to  put 
its  opinions  in  systematic  form,  —  its  religious  opinions 
full  as  much  as  any  ;  and  these  will  be  earnestly  adhered 
to,  and  vehemently  defended,  just  in  proportion  as  the 
faith  they  are  connected  with  is  held  sacred  and  dear. 
We  are  not  to  wonder  at  the  controversies  of  the  early 
Church  ;  only  to  lament  their  extreme  violence,  and  find 
out,  if  we  may,  the  origin  of  opinions  so  radically  vari- 
ous, so  bitterly  conflicting.  In  the  stating  of  his  belief, 
no  one  can  tell  how  much  is  due  to  previous  education 
and  habits  of  thought,  or  how  much  is  legitimately  de- 
rived from  any  single  principle.  The  early  Christians 
were  never  able  to  analyze  their  own  opinions  accurately, 
and  say  just  what  w^as  peculiarly  Christian  in  them,  and 
what  was  not.     Latent  beliefs  and  hopes,  that  had  been 


HISTORY    OF    ORTHODOXY.  191 

kindled  long  before  and  smothered  under  superstition  or 
abuse,  would  be  revived  ;  all  the  better  faculties  of  their 
nature,  discouraged  under  the  world's  idolatry,  or  re- 
buked by  its  skeptic  speculation,  would  be  energized 
afresh.  The  Christian  found  himself  a  new  man,  shar- 
ing a  new  life  of  trust  and  love  and  hope.  The  fact  of 
its  being  so  he  was  well  assured  of ;  the  reason  and 
essential  character  of  it  was  not  so  easy  a  thing  to  tell. 
The  early  writers  and  teachers  of  the  Church  had  been 
philosophers  of  some  Greek  or  Eastern  school,  or  Jews, 
bred  In  reverence  to  the  law  of  Moses.  Some  adhered 
to  the  ritual  declaration,  that  "  without  shedding  of  blood 
there  is  no  remission,"  applying  it  to  every  form  and 
degree  of  sin  ;  others  labored  to  force  a  spiritual  mean- 
ing upon  every  word  of  the  Old  Testament ;  while 
others,  again,  rejected  the  whole  Jewish  dispensation,  as 
the  w^ork  of  an  inferior  and  even  malignant  divinity,  and 
thought  the  enemies  of  Jehovah  were  the  friends  of  the 
true  and  perfect  God.  Some  had  the  Oriental  notion 
of  a  radical  hostility  between  matter  and  spirit ;  and 
they  held  that  Christ  did  not  come  at  all  in  the  flesh,  or 
suffer  in  reality,  but  that  a  phantom  or  imaginary  shape 
was  fastened  to  the  cross.  This  belief,  it  is  said,  pre- 
vails widely  in  Asia  at  the  present  day.  Some  had  the 
Platonic  or  Pythagorean  notion  of  the  mystic  properties 
of  numbers,  and  the  creative  power  of  the  Divine  Idea 
or  Word  ;  and  Christian  doctrine  was  speedily  affected 
by  their  terminology.  It  was  a  wavering  and  uncertain 
line,  at  best,  that  separated  the  true  Church  from  the 
heretical.  The  statement,  that  strict  justice  and  love 
cannot  subsist  in  the  same  being,  was  first  made  by  Mar- 
cion,  who  applied  it  to  his  doctrine  of  law  and  grace  ; 
and  he  was  bitterly  denounced  by  the  good  Polycarp  as 
"  the  first-born  of  Satan." 


192  HISTORY    OF    ORTHODOXY. 

Then  there  existed  a  thousand  forms  of  speculation, 
as  wild  and  vague  as  any  now.  The  old  polytheism 
was  breaking  down  under  the  attack  of  philosophical 
skepticism  ;  while  spiritual  or  transcendental  theories 
sprang  up  in  Egypt  and  the  East,  to  satisfy  men's  crav- 
ing for  religious  truth,  and  the  wildest  superstitions  of 
magic,  the  craziest  fanaticism,  and  blindest  reverence 
towards  miracle-mongers,  spread  over  a  large  part  of  the 
Roman  Empire.  ApoUonius  of  Tyana  and  Alexander 
of  Abonoteichos  were  not  far  from  contemporary  with 
Christ.  To  fill  the  void  left  by  the  decay  of  ancient 
beliefs,  there  rushed  in  a  mingled  flood  of  every  species 
of  fanatic  extravagance.  From  the  cruel  rites  of  magic 
to  the  lofty  speculations  of  a  proud  Gnostic  philosophy, 
every  thing  that  appealed  in  any  way  to  men's  religious 
sense  found  a  welcome  somewhere.  "  Such,"  says 
Constant,*  *'  was  the  condition  of  the  human  race. 
Skepticism  boasted  of  delivering  men  from  prejudice 
and  error  and  fear  ;  and  all  errors  and  fears  seemed  let 
loose.  Reason  was  proclaimed  ;  and  the  whole  world 
was  struck  with  madness.  All  systems  were  founded 
in  calculation  and  addressed  to  interest,  permitting  pleas- 
ure and  recommending  repose  ;  and  never  were  more 
shameful  delusions,  more  unruly  disturbances,  more  bit- 
ter pain  :  till  the  wretched  race  seemed  desirous  to  per- 
ish, that  it  might  escape  from  a  world  icithout  a  God.''^ 

And  while  the  spiritual  hunger  and  emptiness  of  such 
an  era  formed  part  of  the  preparation  in  men's  minds  for 
the  appearing  of  a  pure,  positive  faith,  like  that  of  Christ, 
it  cannot  be  disguised,  that  habits  of  thought  so  strange 
and  various  made  it  utterly  impossible  to  give  a  sound 

*  Roman  Polytheism. 


HISTORY    OF    ORTHODOXY.  ,  193 

ft 

and  simple  exposition  of  that  faith.  It  could  not  but  be 
that  controversies  should  exist  as  to  every  possible  dog- 
matic statement  that  should  be  framed.  And  contro- 
versies accordingly  there  were. 

It  was  from  the  midst  of  that  chaos  of  religious  opin- 
ion, of  which  I  have  endeavoured  to  give  some  hint,  that 
the  positive  doctrines  of  Christianity  had  to  be  developed, 
one  by  one.  That  this  was  no  simple  and  easy  matter, 
the  incessant  controversial  labors  of  Paul  are  a  sufficient 
evidence.  Still  more  striking  is  the  history  of  the  estab- 
lishment of  the  doctrine  of  Christ's  Divinity,  two  centu- 
ries and  a  half  later.  Of  that  great  battle  I  cannot  pre- 
tend to  give  even  the  briefest  account.  By  the  acknowl- 
edgment of  candid  historians,  like  Neander,  no  distinct 
doctrinal  statements  were  insisted  on  in  the  earlier  period 
of  the  Church,  a  simple  general  declaration  of  faith  in 
Christ  being  held  sufficient.  But  when  the  period  of 
the  persecution  w^as  over,  and  a  nominally  Christian  em- 
peror ruled  the  Roman  world,  the  smothered  struggle 
broke  out  in  2:reat  bitterness.  Arius  and  Athanasius 
were  the  heads  of  the  two  contending  parties.  The  feud 
was  lone:  and  bitter,  lastin";  not  less  than  half  a  centurv. 
First  one  side,  and  then  the  other,  laid  down  the  form  of 
faith  for  the  Christian  world.  Five  times  x\thanasius  was 
in  exile,  and  for  a  large  part  of  forty  years  in  peril  of 
death.  He  triumphed  at  last,  as  we  know,  and  gave  the 
tone  to  the  general  opinion  of  the  Western  Church  ;  while 
the  Northern  converted  tribes  continued  for  many  cen- 
turies, as  do  some  of  the  Oriental  churches  to  this  day, 
to  hold  opinions  radically  different  on  what  is  held  to 
be  the  most  vital  point  of  all. 

The  fact  remains  historically  true  and  incontrovertible, 
that   the   cardinal   doctrines  of  Orthodoxy  were  slowly 
17 


194  HISTORY    OF    ORTHODOXY. 

matured,  one  by  one,  established  by  uncertain  and  fluctu- 
ating majorities,  in  councils  notorious  for  violence  of  party 
feeling,  and  maintained  for  a  long  time  by  the  terror  of  the 
sword.  I  have  illustrated  this  in  only  a  single  instance, 
—  the  doctrine  of  the  Deity  of  Christ.  The  Trinity,  as 
I  before  mentioned,  did  not  appear  in  its  final  shape  till 
later,  at  least,  than  the  middle  of  the  fifth  century.  The 
several  successive  forms  assumed  by  the  doctrine  of  the 
Atonement  I  have  also  exhibited  before.  Not  less  vio- 
lent was  the  controversy  on  other  points.  In  385,  Pris- 
cillian  was  put  to  death  in  Spain  for  heresy  on  the 
subject  of  moral  evil ;  "  the  first  instance  of  the  judicial 
execution  of  a  heretic,"  says  Gieseler,  "  and  universally 
condemned."  And  the  more  attentively  we  consider 
the  history  of  religious  opinion,  the  more  clearly  shall 
we  see,  both  that  the  fundamental  character  of  the  pre- 
vailing theology  has  very  widely  varied  from  age  to  age, 
and  that  the  form  given  to  it  at  successive  periods  has 
had  no  weight  of  authority  whatever  that  should  over- 
rule the  distinct  and  deliberate  conviction  of  any  well- 
informed  and  candid  man. 

One  further  point  deserves  a  moment's  notice,  —  the 
sort  of  spiritual  authority  by  which  the  received  opinion 
for  the  time  being  has  been  enforced.  That  no  ecclesi- 
astical power  was  vested  in  an  organized  body  of  men 
by  any  commission  of  Jesus,  at  least  to  endure  for  more 
than  a  single  generation,  seems  as  plain  an  inference  as  it 
is  possible  to  draw  from  the  general  language  of  the  Tes- 
tament. That  it  was  not  uniformly  submitted  to,  at  any 
rate,  is  proved  by  the  divisions  in  the  apostolic  council, 
by  Paul's  opposition  to  Peter,  before  spoken  of,  and  by 
his  steady  refusal  to  regard  the  apostles  in  any  other 
light  than  as  independent  teachers  of  a  common  faith. 


HISTORY    OF    ORTHODOXY.  195 

But  ecclesiastical  power  being  once  got,  it  was  never 
difficult  to  find  occasion  for  putting  it  forth.  How  here- 
sies were  dealt  with  by  the  Roman  Church,  some  cen- 
turies ago,  we  know  from  the  history  of  the  Inquisition, 
the  Albigenses,  the  Knights  Templars,  the  Council  of 
Constance,  and  the  wars  of  the  Huguenots  in  France. 
If  P]-otestant  sects  have  had  less  power,  they  have  often 
had  no  more  scruple  about  using  what  power  they  had. 
From  the  precise  and  rigid  dogmatism  of  Calvin,  carried 
out  to  the  burning  of  Servetus  for  heresy  by  the  author- 
ities of  Geneva,  down  to  the  shadowy  remnant  of  eccle- 
siastical sway  shown  in  excluding  fellow-believers  from 
the  communion-table  for  some  trifling  variation  in  their 
creed,  the  still  existing  forms  of  discipline  and  excom- 
munication, or  simply  withholding  the  Christian  name 
when  claimed  by  others  as  a  privilege  or  a  right,  we 
still  find  relics  and  traces  of  the  same  domineering  spirit, 
the  same  disposition  to  lord  it  over  God's  heritage  and 
have  dominion  over  others'  faith,  so  nobly  disclaimed  by 
the  Apostle  Paul.  The  remnants  of  this  exclusive  and 
domineering  temper,  still  existing  in  our  churches,  I 
have  not  thought  it  best  to  notice  more  at  length,  de- 
siring only  to  show  how  baseless  is  the  assumption  they 
are  founded  on,  and  how  hostile  to  the  mind  of  Christ 
the  theory  they  are  called  in  to  support.  Positive  cru- 
elty and  harsh  injustice  are  often  committed,  even  now, 
in  the  wielding  of  that  frail  and  shadowy  sceptre  of  spir- 
itual authority.  But  the  sufferers  by  this  now  are  indi- 
viduals, not  whole  classes,  tribes,  or  nations,  as  in  former 
times.  Except  in  isolated  cases,  the  pressure  of  church 
authority  is  not  often  very  harshly  felt,  perhaps  ;  and  the 
spirit  of  our  time  is  most  powerfully  arrayed  against  it. 
But  as  part  of   the   machinery  w^hich  has  always  been 


196  POSITION    OF    ORTHODOXY. 

found  necessary  to  brace  these  doctrines  up  against  the 
assaults  of  reason  and  independent  thought,  we  cannot 
but  notice  it  thus  passingly.  It  forms  a  very  important, 
and  indeed  essential,  feature  in  the  history  of  Orthodox 
opinion.  Why  the  authority  has  generally  been  exer- 
cised that  way,  it  is  perhaps  not  difficult  to  tell.  But 
as  its  terrors  disappear,  we  may  at  least  rejoice  that 
matters  of  opinion  are  likely  to  be  judged  more  inde- 
pendently, aad  more  truly  by  their  merits. 

II.  I  have  thus  brought  forward  the  points  best  w^orth 
noting  in  the  historical  aspect  of  the  theory  in  review, 
namely,  the  previously  existing  elements  which  were 
blended  with  the  primitive  Christian  faith  ;  next,  the 
process  by  which,  in  the  course  of  centuries,  the  sev- 
eral doctrines  were  brought  to  their  present  shape  ;  and, 
finally,  the  authority,  or  ecclesiastical  power,  which  has 
always  been  brought  in  play  to  defend  them  against  the 
invasions  of  free  inquiry.  The  remaining  point  for  con- 
sideration is  the  condition  in  which  we  find  these  doc- 
trines now,  —  the  hold  they  have  on  the  general  mind 
at  the  present  day,  and  the  counter  influences  that  are 
at  work  to  weaken  that  hold. 

It  is  only  with  great  distrust,  and  many  quahfications, 
that  we  can  speak  of  the  actual  position  which  any  form 
of  belief  occupies  at  any  given  time.  Long  after  the 
Greek  mythology  had  lost  credit  with  thinking  men,  and 
the  inhabitants  of  cities  generally,  it  lingered  in  the  rural 
provinces  ;  and  hence  the  name  Pagan,  which  in  its  first 
use  meant  simply  villager.  At  Athens,  Paul  found  an 
altar  "  to  the  unknown  God,"  and  only  Epicureans  and 
Stoics  to  encounter  ;  while  in  a  remote  district  of  Asia 
Minor  the  people  were  ready  to  offer  sacrifice  to  him  as 
the  god  Mercury.     Now  it  would  be  a  gratuitous  affront 


POSITION    OF    ORTHODOXY.  197 

to  rank  any  form  of  Christian  belief  with  the  relics  of  that 
old  mythology  ;  but  the  law  of  the  mind  observed  in 
both  cases  is  the  same.  Every  doctrine,  considered  as 
the  imperfect  statement  of  a  spiritual  fact,  must  pass 
through  three  stages  :  being,  first,  the  sincere  and  genu- 
ine expression  of  some  point  of  personal  conviction  or 
experience,  the  growth  directly  of  the  active  religious 
sentiment  ;  next,  taught  or  transmitted  in  the  form  so 
given  to  it,  without  a  doubt  as  to  its  truth,  only  less  ear- 
nestly felt  because  taken  at  second  hand  ;  and,  finally, 
retained  as  a  dead  and  empty  form,  after  the  spirit  is 
departed,  or  the  religious  fact  is  no  longer  perceived 
in  it,  when  it  must  be  speedily  supplanted  by  some  other 
belief,  or  disbelief.  These  three  are  blended  and  inter- 
mingled, so  that  they  can  never  be  accurately  distin- 
guished and  positively  pronounced  upon  ;  yet  they  indi- 
cate the  process  of  mind  which  always  ensues  as  to  any 
practical  and  imperfect  statement  of  religious  truth.  The 
truth  to  be  expressed  is  in  its  nature  infinite ;  and  the 
form  of  words  is  never  broad  enough  to  cover  it  com- 
pletely. 

It  would  not  become  me  to  pronounce  with  any  pos- 
iliveness  as  to  the  degree  of  earnestness  and  sincerity 
with  which  the  doctrines  in  question  are  adhered  to. 
Certain  it  is,  that  their  signification  is  very  essentially 
modified  from  what  it  once  was.  No  intelligent  man 
would  be  willing,  at  the  present  day,  to  commit  himself 
to  the  forms  of  statement  which  were  once  ri2;idlv  held 
to  ;  for  instance,  as  to  Election,  Predestination,  and  Nat- 
ural Depravity.  Language  is  often  used  with  a  secret 
reservation  and  qualification,  —  more  to  have  a  certain 
effect  within  the  Church,  than  to  state  dogmatically  the 
spiritual  condition  of  those  outside  the  Church.  Denun- 
17* 


198  POSITION    OF    ORTHODOXY. 

elation  of  heretical  opinion  may  be  made  as  positively  as 
ever  ;  but  in  the  thousand  social  and  Christian  courtesies 
that  are  daily  passing,  the  "  middle  walls  of  partition  " 
between  the  various  sects  are  imperceptibly  undermined. 
More  and  more  is  necessarily  made  of  the  great  spiritual 
principles  that  underlie  the  religious  character,  less  and 
less  of  the  form  in  which  they  may  be  professed.  What- 
ever may  be  the  declarations  of  men's  creed,  I  never  can 
believe  that,  when  the  case  occurs,  the  previously  formed 
opinion  does  not  melt  down  before  the  exhibition  of  pure, 
practical  Christianity,  anywhere.  In  earnest,  positive 
statements  of  the  conditions  of  the  religious  life,  men  fall 
back  more  and  more  on  what  is  simple  and  universal  ; 
and  their  notion  of  what  Christianity  is  corresponds 
more  nearly  with  their  ideal  of  a  devout  and  holy  life. 
And  this  process,  continually  going  on,  and  usurping  by 
degrees  the  place  of  the  dogmatism  that  was  once  so 
much  dwelt  on,  is  an  almost  certain  pledge,  that,  what- 
ever opinions  be  personally  held  and  cherished,  the  es- 
sentials of  the  Christian  life  will  be  regarded  more  and 
more  as  the  simple  first  principles  of  piety  and  love. 
Dogmatic*ChristIanity  must  be  superseded  by  the  prac- 
tical, or  the  danger  is  that  both  will  decay  together. 

Another  thing  that  should  be  noticed  is,  that  critical 
investigation  and  discussion  are  doing  very  much  to 
weaken  the  hold  on  multitudes  of  opinions  formerly  held 
whhout  doubt  or  scruple.  The  sublimation  of  Ortho- 
doxy into  metaphysics,  and  the  bold  speculation  that 
has  taken  the  place  of  implicit  trust  in  the  Scriptures, 
are  well-known  features  of  the  theology  of  the  present 
day.  Both  are  unavoidable  incidents  in  the  career  of 
the  active  mind.  Besides,  the  proof  relied  on  to  sustain 
these  doctrines  is  of  a  sort  which  has  very  much  lost 


POSITION    OF    ORTHODOXY.  199 

credit  in  modern  times.  Textual  interpretation  and  ec- 
clesiastical authority,  practical  and  cogent  arguments 
once,  pass  for  little  now  to  the  independent  seeker  after 
truth.  Natural  science  and  historical  criticism  have  in- 
troduced a  whole  new  order  of  investigation  ;  and  what 
would  once  be  received  with  easy  and  credulous  assent 
has  now  to  abide  a  far  severer  scrutiny. 

The  inevitable  consequence  of  this  is,  that  what  does 
not  harmonize  with  the  analogies  of  nature  and  the  re- 
ceived dictates  of  other  branches  of  knowledge  main- 
tains at  best  a  hazardous  and  uncertain  place  in  the 
world's  esteem.  Either  it  claims  a  province  of  its  own 
(which  may  be  conceded  to  it  by  courtesy),  and  as- 
pires to  nothing  more  than  to  rule  the  way  of  thinking 
of  the  credulous  kw  ;  or  else,  maintaining  its  relation  to 
the  great  world  of  human  thought  and  progress,  it  is 
forced  to  make  concessions  to  men's  common  sense,  to 
keep  in  reserve  its  more  prominent  and  characteristic 
features,  and  to  appear  simply  as  the  champion  of  re- 
ligious faith  and  good  morals.  It  waives  its  distinctive 
character  as  Orthodoxy  ;  it  forgets  the  ancient  lofty 
claim  of  theology  as  queen  of  the  sciences,  ^d  occu- 
pies precisely  the  same  ground,  to  all  practical  purpose, 
with  that  very  style  of  heresy  which  from  a  dogmatic 
point  of  view  it  persists  in  denouncing.  The  position 
of  practical  religion  and  morality  is  one  and  the  same 
everywhere.  And  the  virtual  disavowal  of  an  exclusive 
sanctity  and  authority,  and  the  habit  which  more  and 
more  prevails  of  pleading  in  behalf  of  religion  generally, 
rather  than  any  special  form  of  it,  are  worth  noting,  as 
one  sign  of  the  position  occupied  by  Orthodoxy  proper 
at  the  present  day. 

Still   more    striking    is   the   illustration   of   this    point 


200  POSITION    OF     ORTHODOXY. 

which  we  find  in  the  case  of  earnest  and  thoughtful  men, 
of  every  religious  body.  They  come  more  and  more 
to  occupy  a  common  ground.  The  effort  to  spiritualize 
the  ancient  dogma  brings  its  meaning  round  to  coincide 
with  that  of  the  modern  speculation.  After  all,  men's 
understanding  of  the  dogma  is  only  the  requirement  of 
one  or  another  school  of  metaphysics.  The  creed  may 
remain  the  same  ;  but  read  in  the  light  of  old  English 
philosophy  it  is  one  thing,  in  that  of  new  German 
philosophy  it  is  quite  another  thing.  Perhaps  Cole- 
ridge is  doing  more  to  revolutionize  and  liberalize  the 
prevalent  theology,  than  all  the  so-called  liberal  writers 
put  together.  Substitute  his  style  of  thinking  for  the 
old  Calvinistic  metaphysics,  and  we  care  not  much  how 
tenaciously  you  retain  the  forms  of  speech.  The  essen- 
tial value  of  doctrine,  after  all,  will  be  as  a  true  and  pro- 
found exposition  of  human  experience  ;  and  just  in  pro- 
portion to  men's  sincerity  and  depth  will  this  be  found 
to  be  substantially  the  same,  from  whatever  school  of 
theology  it  may  proceed.  The  broad  features  of  the 
religious  life,  underlying  every  form  of  speculation  or 
dogma,  ate  the  same  in  all ;  and  as  oar  interpretation  of 
these  is  rich  and  full,  shall  we  attain  completeness  in  our 
theology.  And  this  is  a  way  of  viewing  the  subject 
which  is  inevitably  coming  to  take  the  place  of  the  old 
style  of  dogmatizing.  Let  it  once  be  clearly  appre- 
hended and  consistently  followed  out,  and  we  shall  no 
longer  be  troubled  with  the  vexing  and  relentless  war- 
fare of  contending  sects  and  creeds,  no  longer  distressed 
with  dogmatic  declarations  of  God's  wrath  upon  heretics 
and  unbelievers. 

And  once  more,  zeal  for  the  doctrine  of  an  exclusive 
church  is  coming  to  be  superseded  by  a  new-born  zeal 


POSITION    OF    ORTHODOXY.  201 

for  other  things.  Points  of  pubHc  practical  morality, 
positive  and  ostensible  matters  of  humanity  and  reform, 
have  more  weight  than  church  authority  with  the  mass 
of  conscientious  men.  From  its  peculiar  position  in  the 
world  of  thought,  Orthodoxy  has  been  compelled  to 
spend  an  undue  portion  of  its  energies  in  the  work  of 
self-defence.  Hence,  danger  of  hesitation  about  apply- 
ing principles  of  Christian  righteousness  to  existing  facts  ; 
and  then,  of  mutilating  the  principles  themselves.  Re- 
ligious bodies  have  always  been  charged  with  timidity 
and  backwardness  as  to  great  points  of  public  morals. 
If  they  can  answer  the  charge  by  saying  their  office  is 
to  develop  individual  conscience  and  moral  force,  it  is 
a  good  and  sufficient  answer.  But  this  cannot  be  the 
case,  while  the  province  of  religion  is  placed  chiefly  in 
what  priesthoods  have  always  claimed  control  of,  name- 
ly, religious  emotion  or  ceremony  and  the  future  life. 
Religious  principle  and  the  present  life  are  legitimate 
portions  of  that  field.  And  so  loud  is  the  demand  for 
the  application  of  rehgion  here,  that  a  church  refusing 
to  hear  that  call  must  lose  ground  relatively,  in  the  ad- 
vance of  a  moving  age.  Theological  opinion  is  remote 
and  ineffectual  just  so  far  as  it  ceases  to  be  a  sincere 
exposition  of  the  facts  of  life,  and  throws  itself  back 
on  the  realm  of  obsolete  ideas.  It  cannot  bear  against 
the  pressure  of  the  world's  advance.  If  it  resists,  that 
pressure  will  be  inevitably  and  most  severely  felt. 

It  might  seem,  from  what  has  now  been  said,  as  if  the 
course  of  things  spontaneously  were  enough,  and  it  were 
labor  lost  to  urge  on  a  movement  that  is  already  rapid 
enough  to  be  safe.  Why  hasten  a  dissolution  which  we 
declare  to  be  inevitable  and  sure  ?     Why  trouble  men's 


202  POSITION    OF    ORTHODOXY. 

belief,  which  is  to  perish  so  soon  without  our  aid  ?     Let 
me  answer  this  question  briefly,  in  conclusion. 

The  process  is  not  a  spontaneous  one,  and  will  not 
regulate  itself.  The  actual  harm  done  in  our  view  by 
the  maintaining  of  doctrines  virtually  outgrown  and  ob- 
solete, I  have  insisted  on  before.  Their  mischief  as  a 
vis  inertioR  in  the  way  of  intellectual  and  moral  force 
I  have  just  alluded  to,  as  w^ell  as  the  waste  of  strength 
and  zeal  spent  in  sustaining  them.  These  alone  would 
be  reason  enough  for  distinctly  and  positively  opposing 
them.  Controversy  is  neither  useful  nor  pleasant  for  its 
own  sake  ;  but  it  is  the  appointed  and  necessary  means 
of  something  better  than  itself.  Truth  and  error  must 
be  matched  and  confronted,  — set  fairly  face  to  face,  — 
or  the  high  purpose  and  work  of  truth  will  be  for  ever 
unattained.  Controversy,  then,  waged  in  a  sincere  and 
independent  way,  is  not  to  be  regretted,  but  welcomed 
as  the  pioneer  of  truth  and  righteousness.  "  Opinion 
in  good  men,"  says  Milton,  "  is  but  knowledge  in  the 
making."  So  controversy  in  honest  men  is  but  pure 
Christianity  in  the  learning. 

And  finally,  though  the  result  may  seem  sure  enough, 
—  the  destruction  of  certain  forms  of  error,' —  yet  it  is 
of  infinite  consequence  what  shall  come  to  take  their 
place.  The  theory  of  Christianity  which  we  have  been 
examining,  I  think,  is  certainly  destined  to  a  speedy 
fall.  It  seems  not  to  have  an  independent,  vigorous 
life,  but  rather  to  be  sustained  by  habit  and  the  dead 
weight  of  inert  resistance  to  the  assaults  of  reason. 
But  it  has  filled  a  place  in  the  conscience  and  affec- 
tion of  men,  which  must  not  be  left  empty.  That  this 
should  perish,  and  no  substitute  be  found,  would  be  a 
far  greater  calamity  than  that  it  should  exist  perpetually. 


POSITION    OF    ORTHODOXY.  203 

The  question  before  us  is,  Shall  it  be  supplanted  by  a 
cold  negation,  or  outgrown  by  a  positive,  free,  and  gen- 
erous faith  ?  It  is  far  easier  to  pull  down  than  to  build 
up.  There  may  be  a  time  for  both  ;  but  the  time  for 
this  last  should  begin  as  soon  and  last  as  long  as  pos- 
sible. To  deny  is  far  easier  than  to  affirm,  and  to  some 
is  quite  as  satisfactory.  But  there  are  moral  and  spirit- 
ual wants  that  must  be  met.  The  heart  of  mankind 
will  for  ever  hunger  and  thirst  after  righteousness,  and  it 
must  be  filled.  With  an  earnest,  and  reverent,  and  re- 
ligious mind,  with  a  willingness  to  undertake  the  hard 
task  of  unfolding  a  higher  and  better  system  of  truth, 
with  a  deep  consciousness  of  those  religious  wants  that 
must  be  met  by  a  hving  Christianity,  should  we  lay  our 
hand  to  this  preparatory  work  of  invading  the  present 
belief  of  men.  We  should  not  wait  for  it  to  be  under- 
mined by  insidious  skepticism,  or  superseded  by  barren 
unbelief.  Strongly  convinced  of  the  reality  of  a  faith 
more  broad,  lofty,  and  inspiring,  and  under  the  impulse 
of  such  a  faith,  should  we  approach  this  preliminary 
work,  as  a  high  duty  we  owe  to  God  and  man.  We 
have  no  right  to  take  it  up  in  a  different  spirit,  or  from 
any  other  point  of  view.  Whether  or  not  we  succeed 
in  making  a  satisfactory  and  faultless  statement,  the  at- 
tempt is  one  which  we  cannot  honestly  forego,  —  to  an- 
ticipate so  far  as  we  may  the  invasions  of  religious  in- 
difference and  unbelief ;  to  plead  in  behalf  of  what  to 
us  is  a  purer  and  a  better  doctrine  ;  and,  while  con- 
tending against  all  forms  of  error,  to  contend  more  ear- 
nestly for  "  the  faith  which  was  once  delivered  unto  the 
saints." 


DISCOURSE  X. 


LIBERAL  CHRISTIANITY. 

WE  HAVING  THE  SAME  SPIRIT  OF  FAITH,  ACCORDING  AS  IT  IS 
WRITTEN,  I  BELIEVED,  AND  THEREFORE  HAVE  I  SPOKEN  J  WE 
ALSO   BELIEVE,    AND    THEREFORE    SPEAK. 2  Cor.  iv.   13. 

It  is  a  charge  which  has  often  been  made  upon  Uni- 
tarians, and  with  some  show  of  justice,  that,  while  they 
do  their  best  to  weaken  men's  behef  in  doctrines  gener- 
ally received,  they  are  not  equally  earnest,  certainly  not 
equally  successful,  in  devising  something  better  to  take 
their  place.  Their  system  is  said  to  be  one  of  nega- 
tions ;  their  doctrine  to  consist  in  a  denial  of  others' 
doctrine  ;  their  Christianity  to  be  the  remnant,  after  re- 
moving all  mystery  and  solemnity  from  the  venerable 
belief  of  the  past.  Theologically  speaking,  it  has  been 
too  often  so.  The  task  is  certainly  more  obvious,  per- 
haps easier,  to  contend  against  a  given  form  of  error, 
than  to  develop  consistently  the  opposing  truth  ;  and  it  is 
not  to  be  wondered  at  if,  to  some  persons,  they  seemed 
to  have  nothing  to  offer  but  a  "  statement  of  reasons 
for  not  believing  "  the  received  dogmas  of  Orthodoxy. 
But  a  glance  will  show  that  this  charge  rests  on  mere 


LIBERAL    CHKISTIANITV.  205 

Ignorant  prejudice.  If  Orthodoxy  means  the  view  of 
Christianity  which  involves  the  Trinity  and  the  Vicarious 
Atonement,  Unitarianism  is  the  view  of  Christianity  whicli 
does  not  involve  these  doctrines.*  So  far  the  statement 
is  doubtless  negative.  But,  for  all  that  appears,  one  view 
may  be  as  lofty,  positive,  and  broad  as  the  other.  Nay, 
the  doctrine  which  is  denied  may  be  an  encumbrance,  a 
limit,  a  perversion  or  enfeebling,  of  the  truth  ;  and  then 
what  is  denial  in  form  is  affirmation  in  fact.  It  is  only  to 
say  w^ith  Paul,  "  The  word  of  God  is  not  bound.  ^''  And 
such,  in  truth  and  honesty,  I  consider  the  case  to  be. 
Setting  aside,  then,  this  common  prejudice,  let  us  look 
on  one  side  and  on  the  other,  and  judge  them  by  their 
merits. 

The  several  doctrines  of  Orthodoxy  I  have  regarded 
as  false  and  injurious  interpretations  of  certain  points  in 
the  religious  feeling  and  experience.  I  have  represented 
them  as  opposed  to  and  standing  in  the  way  of  the  prin- 
ciples of  pure  and  simple  Christianity.  What  those 
principles  are  I  have  only  intimated,  not  distinctly  laid 
down.  I  have  taken  them  for  granted,  rather  than  given 
them  a  formal  and  systematic  exposition.  I  have  as- 
sumed the  existence  of  a  counter  system  of  religious 
truth,  furnishing  the  standard  which  the  doctrines  under 
review  have  been  matched  against  and  judged  by.  I 
come  now  to  state  more  distinctly  what  that  system  is  ; 
or  rather,  what  the  essential  principles  are  that  give  it  its 
distinctive  character.  That  it  is  identical  with  the  sys- 
tem taught  by  Christ,  I  have  rather  assumed  than  pos- 
itively asserted  or  maintained  by  argument.  To  do 
away  in  part  the  feeling  that  it  is  a  vague  and  negative 

*  See  Prospective  Review,  Vol.  II.  p.  535, 

18 


206  LIBERAL    CHRISTIANITY. 

thing,  and  to  remove  misconceptions  as  to  my  own 
meaning  and  position,  I  ask  your  attention  to  the  state- 
ment I  have  now  to  make. 

What  I  mean  by  the  phrase  "  Liberal  Christianity" 
is  by  no  means  the  same  thing  with  the  system  professed 
by  any  church  or  sect,  or  received  as  the  acknowledged 
basis  of  any  denominational  union.  Statements  of  belief 
there  may  be,  sufficiently  full  and  accurate  to  define  the 
position  of  an  individual,  positive  enough  to  make  the 
basis  of  outward  union  and  cooperation  ;  but  no  one  has 
a  right  to  take  his  own,  still  less  that  of  any  body  of 
men,  as  a  sufficient  exponent  of  what  we  mean  by  Lib- 
eral Christianity.  It  is  rather  a  set  of  principles  half 
consciously  adopted  by  men  in  every  sect ;  the  obscure 
basis  of  a  common  hope,  zeal,  and  interest,  among  all 
who  unite  in  the  great  Christian  work  ;  a  common  spirit, 
dwelling  in  many  forms,  found  in  many  places,  pervading 
and  harmonizing  many  various  beliefs.  It  is  simply  the 
element  of  religion  and  humanity,  the  essential  meaning 
and  motive  in  the  words  of  Christ,  the  underlying  prin- 
ciple in  all  sincere  and  earnest  expositions  of  truth  and 
duty,  —  only  requiring  to  be  more  prominently  brought 
forward  and  more  clearly  understood,  as  the  sum  and 
substance  of  Christianity  itself. 

In  the  last  Discourse,  I  alluded  to  some  of  the  signs 
that  earnest  men  in  every  sect  are  coming  more  and 
more  to  occupy  this  common  ground  of  a  spiritual  faith, 
and  to  represent  this,  and  not  any  form  of  dogmatic 
opinion,  as  the  essential  thing  in  religion.  It  would  be 
doing  great  injustice  to  put  forward  the  claim  of  any 
sect,  as  such,  to  a  monopoly  of  it,  or  ev'en  to  a  para- 
mount place  as  its  representative.  If  I  have  spoken 
occasionally  as  a  Unitarian,  it  has  not  been  to  disparage 


LIBERAL    CHRISTIANITY.  207 

the  position  of  others  in  the  movement  which  I  wish  to 
fepresent.  Sincerely  thinking,  as  I  do,  that  the  forms  of 
opinion  w^hich  as  Unitarians  we  oppose  are  full  of  harm 
and  error,  I  by  no  means  consider  that  as  Unitarians  we 
have  attained  a  sufficient  knowledge  of  the  truth.  At 
most,  we  can  only  claim  to  be,  with  others,  seekers  after 
truth ;  occupying  in  some  respects  a  more  favorable  po- 
sition, at  least,  than  ice  could  occupy  elsewhere,  but  wel- 
coming most  gladly  the  fellowship  and  aid  of  fellow- 
seekers  everywhere.  I  have  endeavoured  all  along  to 
show  how  liberal  principles  are  at  work  in  the  bosom  of 
every  sect ;  giving  more  and  more  the  tone  to  their 
theology,  and  leading  them  to  place  more  stress  on  the 
principles  of  the  Christian  life  than  on  any  theological 
creed.  It  is  my  object  now  to  show  more  fully  what 
these  principles  are,  and  what  is  the  consummation  they 
are  leading  to. 

What  I  speak  of  as  Liberal  Christianity  is  not  the 
property  of  any  man,  or  church,  or  sect,  or  creed.  Any 
sectarian  name  would  be  far  too  narrow  to  express  its 
meaning  and  purpose.  In  its  essential  character,  some 
may  be  nearer  to  it,  and  some  farther  off;  but  in  some 
degree,  greater  or  less,  it  is  represented  in  every  sect 
and  church.  It  is  a  method  of  understanding  and  apply- 
ing the  truths  of  religion  wholly  different,  and  proceed- 
ing from  a  different  set  of  principles,  and  presupposing 
a  radically  different  view  of  the  Divine  government,  from 
that  which  we  have  been  considering  heretofore.  To 
that  theory  it  is  radically  opposed,  —  uncompromisingly 
hostile.  And  yet  I  do  not  apprehend  that  any  single 
feature  in  it,  rightly  stated,  will  excite  alarm  and  distrust 
in  a  large  class  of  those  who  advocate  that  theory  ever 


208  LIBERAL    CHRISTIANITY. 

SO  sincerely.  The  great  difference  is,  that  what  to  one 
is  only  the  sentiment  of  the  earnest  and  thoughtful,  the 
desire  and  hope  of  the  free-minded,  an  incident  and  ap- 
pendage to  the  positive  declaration  of  the  creed,  rather 
acquiesced  in  (if  thought  of  at  all)  than  explicitly  accept- 
ed and  avowed,  to  the  other  is  the  main  and  essential 
element  of  Christianity  itself. 

In  other  words,  a  spirit  is  abroad,  turning  the  thought 
of  the  thoughtful  and  the  hope  of  the  earnest  and  sincere 
into  a  common  channel,  towards  a  common  end.  To 
take  that  up,  to  analyze  and  understand  it,  to  make  it 
the  prominent  and  essential  thing  in  our  religious  theory, 
to  show  its  relations  to  the  human  mind  and  its  applica- 
tion to  human  life,  is  to  expound  the  system  of  what  I 
call  Liberal  Christianity.  When  we  speak  of  it,  we  are 
dealing  with  fundamental  principles,  not  detailed  opin- 
ions. It  is  to  very  litde  purpose  to  inquire,  what  do 
Unitarians  believe,  or  what  does  any  man  believe.  A 
person's  private  opinions  are  in  some  sense  his  private 
property ;  and  it  is  a  barren  and  impotent  curiosity  which 
would  pry  into  them  merely  for  their  own  sake.  We  do 
not  wish  to  dictate  our  opinions,  or  take  them  at  any 
one's  else  dictation.  So  far  as  it  seemed  desirable, 
these  have  been  stated  or  implied  all  along.  But  the 
principles  according  to  which  one  believes  and  acts  are 
almost  sure  to  be  worth  knowing  ;  certainly,  if  he  thinks 
for  himself,  and  deeply.  And  these  principles,  as  they 
apply  to  and  are  developed  in  the  liberal  faith,  are  what 
I  would  endeavour  to  set  forth  at  the  present  time.  I 
do  not  undertake  to  give  you  a  Christian  system,  ready 
made  to  hand,  —  not  even  the  outline  of  such  a  system  ; 
but  only  to  say  what  are  the  conditions  on  which  it  is  to 
be  bad,  if  ever  it  is  to  be  had,  —  the  method  we  must 
follow  if  we  would  have  any  success  in  seeking  it. 


LIBERAL    CHRISTIANITY.  209 

I.  In  doing  this,  I  must  lake  for  granted,  first,  the 
simple  great  verities  of  religion,  without  which  it  is  not 
possible  so  much  as  to  conceive  of  a  system  of  religious 
belief  at  all.  What  I  mean  are  such  truths  as  these  : 
the  Being  and  Providence  and  Holy  Attributes  of  God  ; 
the  Freedom  and  Accountability  of  the  Human  Soul  ; 
the  eternal  distinction  between  Right  and  Wrong  ;  the 
Moral  Discipline  and  Retribution  of  Life;  and  the 
crowning  fact  of  Immortality,  with  whatever  of  moral 
or  spiritual  consequences  it  may  involve.  These  we 
must  accept  beforehand,  either  as  primary  truths,  ulti- 
mate and  undeniable,  —  as  much  so  as  the  fact  of  our 
own  existence  or  that  of  the  natural  world,  —  or  else  on 
the  strength  of  some  authority  that  commends  itself  to 
our  mind. 

For  myself,  I  am  free  to  say  I  think  they  are  above 
and  beyond  the  sanction  of  any  outward  authority,  itself 
requiring  to  be  established  by  outward  proof;  that  the 
reason  accepts  and  believes  them,  as  soon  as  it  is  in  a 
condition  that  makes  it  capable  of  doing  so  ;  that  they 
can  only  be  illustrated  and  enforced,  not  their  certainty 
confirmed,  by  the  evidence  of  external  facts  ;  and  that 
the  true  and  only  mode  of  proving  them  is  to  educate 
the  mind,  morally  and  intellectually,  up  to  that  point 
where  it  perceives  them  to  be  necessary  and  eternal 
truths.  Other  evidence,  historic  or  philosophical,  may 
be  of  very  great  incidental  service  in  that  process  of 
education,  but  cannot  afix^rd  the  ultimate  and  sufficient 
proof.  In  the  last  resort,  our  assurance  is,  that  "God 
hath  revealed  them  to  us  by  his  Spirit  ";  whether  by  di- 
rect and  express  communication,  or  in  the  fundamental 
laws  of  our  intellectual  constitution.  W^e  ought  not,  there- 
fore, to  make  them  of  a  secondary  grade  of  certainty ; 
18* 


210  LIBERAL    CHRISTIANITY. 

or  to  allow,  that,  if  the  force  of  other  evidence  is  weak- 
ened,  they  are  rendered  doubtful,  and  lose  their  weight 
and  authority  to  our  mind. 

Such  an  admission  seems  to  me  alike  perilous  and  in- 
correct. Religious  truth,  in  its  intrinsic  character,  is 
most  like  the  propositions  of  the  pure  mathematics  ; 
which  stand  on  their  own  foundation,  and,  as  soon  as 
properly  stated  and  explained,  are  seen  to  express  im- 
mutable and  necessary  facts.  I  may  be  unable  just  now 
to  see  the  truth  of  or  to  understand  an  axiom  in  algebra, 
such  as  those  involved  in  the  differential  calculus,  or  in 
mechanics,  such  as  those  respecting  hydrostatic  pres-, 
sure  and  undulatory  motion.  But  if  so  I  know  the 
fault  is  in  me,  not  infthe  scientific  proposition  that  makes 
it  known  to  me.  To  a  mind  differently  trained,  it  is 
simple  and  self-evident.  In  one  sense  I  may  be  said  to 
receive  it  on  authority  ;  because  I  take  it  for  granted, 
provisionally,  in  applying  to  practice  the  science  which 
I  hope  one  day  to  master  theoretically.  So,  too,  if  I 
cannot  just  now^  see  the  truth  of,  or  understand,  the  doc- 
trine of  Providence  or  the  Immortal  Life,  I  impute  it 
to  a  defect  in  my  own  mind,  not  to  any  lack  of  truth  in 
the  doctrine.  I  am  willing,  and  I  am  compelled,  to 
take  it  for  granted  before  the  proof.  I  know  that  it 
answers  to  the  best  feelings  and  aspirations  of  my  na- 
ture ;  that  the  native  and  spontaneous  belief  of  mankind, 
however  imperfect,  always  includes  it  ;  that  it  has  been 
an  essential  element  in  the  most  exalted  minds,  and  the 
inspiration  of  all  the  noblest  lives  ;  and  I  am  sure  that, 
as  my  experience  widens  and  deepens,  and  my  tone  of 
thought  is  elevated,  I  shall  become  more  capable  of  re- 
ceiving it.  The  universal  mind  ©f  man,  and  the  highest 
and  purest  individual  minds^  repose  alike  on  this  prim- 


LIBERAL    CHRISTIANITY.  211 

itive  conviction.  Doubt  is  a  transition  state  that  often 
intervenes  between  the  two  ;  while  belief  is  the  normal 
condition  of  the  mind,  as  shown  by  all  the  tests  which 
we  have  a  right  to  apply.  And  this,  it  seems  to  me,  is 
the  only  sort  of  authority,  or  method  of  proof,  that  can 
be  safely  employed  in  regard  to  the  fundamental  truths 
of  religion.  It  is  not  outward,  but  inward  ;  not  scien- 
tific or  historic,  but  spiritual. 

But  whether  from  inward  persuasion  or  from  outward 
evidence  or  authority  we  accept  that  order  of  truth,  it  is 
equally  certain  that  it  must  be  presupposed,  as  the  foun- 
dation of  any  system  of  religious  belief.  And  for  our 
present  purpose  (which  is  to  illustrate  the  principles  of 
a  Christian  system),  I  presuppose  the  same  as  to  the 
facts  of  historical  Christianity,  recorded  in  the  New 
Testament.  I  do  not  enter  for  the  present  into  any 
controversy  as  to  their  interpretation,  or  the  precise  na- 
ture of  their  authority  ;  but  it  is  impossible  not  to  per- 
ceive their  immense  value  and  importance  in  a  religious 
point  of  view.  Religion  is  wholly  another  thing  to  us 
from  the  existence  of  these  writings,  from  the  history 
indissolubly  bound  up  with  them,  and  from  the  rever- 
ence with  which  they  are  all  but  universally  regarded. 
The  character  and  tender  providence  of  God  are  here 
revealed  to  us,  as  they  are  nowhere  else  so  clearly, 
through  the  life  and  ministrations  of  Christ.  We  feebly 
acknowledge  our  debt  to  him,  by  naming  our  highest 
thought  and  purest  morality  after  his  name.  Sharing  in 
that  mighty  religious  movement  which  began  with  him, 
we  have  no  wish  to  disparage  the  paramount  and  pecu- 
liar claims  of  the  Christian  Gospels,  however  much  we 
may  seem  to  some  lax  in  our  criticism,  or  dangerous  in 
our  interpretation.     We   may  receive  them  as  explicit 


212  LIBERAL    CHRISTIANITY. 

proof,  or  as  the  providential  illustration  of  the  religious 
truths  spoken  of  before.  We  may  take  them  word  for 
word  as  the  Evangelists  have  delivered  them,  or  make 
qualifications  and  abatements,  according  to  our  convic- 
tions as  to  the  nature  of  historical  evidence  and  the 
credibility  of  what  is  supernatural.  All  this  does  not 
affect  our  sincere  veneration  for  these  books,  or  their 
practical  worth  to  us.  Our  faith  in  God  and  faith  in 
Christ  belong  close  together.  We  differ  from  others, 
not  as  to  the  reality,  but  as  to  the  quality,  of  that  faith. 
And  going  no  farther  than  the  plain,  moral,  and  religious 
signification  of  the  life  of  Christ,  together  with  its  ob- 
vious and  incalculable  influence  on  the  hfe  and  thought 
of  men,  we  find  abundantly  enough  to  command  our 
reverence,  and  to  serve  as  the  basis  and  the  key  to  our 
whole  system  of  religious  thought. 

Let  us  now  briefly  consider  the  important  consequen- 
ces to  life  and  character  which  result  from  accepting 
these  simplest  principles  of  faith,  —  these  most  general 
statements  of  spiritual  truth. 

First,  their  value  as  religious  truth,  in  the  appropri- 
ate sphere  of  the  religious  emotion  and  experience. 
If  they  are  held  as  theory  or  doctrine  merely,  they 
will  be  barren  and  worthless.  I  do  not  say  one  doc- 
trine is  as  good  as  another,  till  each  is  carried  to  its 
proper  result  in  practice  ;  because  we  can  never  trace 
the  secret  operation  of  truth  or  falsehood  upon  the  soul. 
But  it  is  by  no  means  to  content  ourselves  with  an  accu- 
rate theory  that  we  should  seek  and  cherish  truth.  Its 
nature  is  too  grave  and  earnest  for  such  an  intellectual 
play  as  that.  If  right  and  genuine,  its  nature  is  to  be  a 
living  and  a  working  force.  And  for  this  and  other 
reasons  it  is  that  I  think  we  should  not  spend  the  en- 


LIBERAL    CHRISTIANITY.  213 

ergy  of  our  mind  in  seeking  to  establish,  by  laborious 
argument,  those  primary  truths  which  must,  after  all,  be 
taken  for  granted  as  paramount  over  any  method  or  de- 
tail of  proof,  if  we  would  make  them  of  any  worth  to 
us.  To  speculate  about  them  is  the  appropriate  work 
of  the  mind,  doubtless,  in  a  certain  stage  of  growth  ;  but 
the  sooner  it  outgrows  that  stage  by  taking  these  things 
for  granted,  the  better  for  its  health  and  strength.  They 
are  valuable  for  their  practical  and  essential  use,  —  for 
that,  in  other  words,  which  follows  from  the  fact  of 
their  being  religious  truth.  They  brace  and  expand  the 
mind.  They  lead  to  moral  energy  and  earnest  work. 
They  calm  men's  apprehension  of  the  future,  and  make 
them  capable  of  gratitude  for  the  past.  They  widen  the 
circle  of  human  companionship  and  love,  uniting  stran- 
gers in  a  common  hope,  and  making  the  dearest  fellow- 
ship of  friends.  They  shed  upon  the  ordinary  places 
of  human  life  a  light  from  above,  clear  and  celestial  ; 
ennobling  the  lowest  occupation,  and  leading  the  mind 
everywhere  to  repose  in  God.  They  are  the  solace  of 
grief,  the  strength  of  the  lonely,  the  security  against 
temptation,  the  prevailing  power  over  sin,  the  blessing 
and  glory  of  the  mind  that  puts  trust  in  them.  They 
bring  together,  in  the  compass  of  one  magnificent  and 
holy  thought,  the  grandeur  of  the  universe,  the  dignity 
of  the  soul,  the  sacredness  of  life,  the  glory  of  immor- 
tal hope,  and  the  perpetual  enfolding  love  of  God.  All 
this  is  but  part  of  the  native  power  and  efficacy  of  that 
order  of  religious  truth,  when  sincerely  received,  and 
made  habitual  to  the  mind.  In  strictness  of  speech  its 
value  is  infinite, —  not  to  be  measured  or  defined  by  the 
standard  of  any  thing  alien  from  itself.  In  the  language 
of  the  Proverbs,  its  price  is  above  rubies,  and  all  the 


214  LIBERAL    CHRISTIANITY. 

precious  things  thou  canst  desire  are  not  to  be  compared 
with  it. 

And  again,  this  spiritual  faith  has  its  meaning,  which 
the  intellect  is  to  interpret  and  apprehend.  Experi- 
ence and  observation,  refined  and  elaborated  by  patient 
thought,  will  bring  us  rich  material,  to  be  embodied  in 
our  faith  and  spiritualized  by  its  contact.  Honestly, 
clearly,  and  consistently,  the  mind  must  work  upon  the 
facts  of  our  inward  life,  to  see  them  in  their  right  re- 
ligious meaning.  And  whatever  interpretation  we  give 
to  the  origin  of  Christianity,  whether  we  suppose,  with 
some,  that  it  was  the  descent  of  the  living  God  in  human 
form,  or  the  word  of  a  miraculously  vouched  and  authen- 
ticated messenger,  or  simply  the  profound  and  intense 
conviction  of  the  man  Jesus  himself,  calling  forth  in  re- 
sponse that  wonderful  tide  of  religious  life  and  undoubt- 
ing  faith  that  flowed  deep  and  strong  through  the  early 
ages  of  the  Church,  and  so  has  come  to  us, — whatever 
origin  we  assign  to  the  fact,  the  fact  itself  remains. 
Christianity  has  brought  us  objects  of  intellectual  appre- 
hension and  belief.  It  offers  us  material  of  thought, 
rich  without  example.  It  reveals  to  us  by  its  burning 
and  shining  light  something  in  the  depth  of  our  soul  of 
faculty,  and  capacity,  and  emotion,  something  of  the 
broad  compass  of  duty,  something  of  the  grandeur  of 
moral  heroism  and  the  awful  beauty  of  holiness,  some- 
thing of  the  spiritual  nature  and  destination  of  the  soul^, 
which  without  it,  or  something  hke  it,  we  should 
have  never  dreamed.  It  does  shed  a  ray,  broad  and 
clear,  upon  the  path  behind  us  of  our  past  experience, 
and  upon  the  path  before  us  of  coming  duty  and  coming 
pain.  All  this  Christianity  has  done  for  us,  interpret  it 
how  we  can  and  will.     So  much  it  offers  for  food  to  the 


LIBERAL    CHRISTIANITY.  215 

free  and  thinking  mind.  The  gift  should  be  improved, 
the  talent  employed.  The  very  capacity  of  thought, 
to  one  who  thinks,  is  reason  enough  why  the  thought 
should  be  trained  and  used.  For  "  the  light  we  have 
gained,"  says  Milton,  "  was  not  given  us  to  be  ever 
staring  on  ;  but  by  it  to  discover  onward  things  more 
remote  from  our  knowledge." 

We  need  have  no  jealousy  of  the  free  activity  of  hu- 
man thought.  Christianity  does  not  ask  to  live  by  suf- 
ferance. The  free  thought,  like  the  willing  conscience, 
is  its  natural  ally.  Human  error,  like  human  sinfulness, 
is  the  material  God  has  commissioned  it  to  work  upon. 
So  far  from  making  Christianity  succumb,  or  seek 
another  province,  or  contend  uselessly  with  the  moving 
mind  of  man,  we  rather  need  an  interpretation  of  it 
equal  to  the  intellectual  wants  and  advancement  of  an 
intellectual  time.  We  need  an  idea  of  it  equal  to  the 
highest  thought  and  the  intensest  life  of  our  own  day. 
There  are  deep  mental  and  moral  wants,  which  it  is 
called  alike  to  meet.  And  as  unquestionably  the  two 
intellectual  characteristics  of  our  age  are  freedom  and 
science,  —  freedom  in  politics,  society,  and  opinion, 
science  embracing  daily  more  and  more  of  the  bound- 
less range  of  the  entire  universe,  —  so  we  undoubtedly, 
if  Christianity  is  still  to  be  held  and  cherished,  need 
a  statement  of  it  broad  and  generous  and  solemn  and 
deep  and  liberal  enough  to  command  the  respect  and 
to  win  the  love  of  this  all-questioning  and  turbulent  age. 

Again,  the  moral  aim  and  purpose  of  Christianity. 
Its  work  is  not  only  to  expand  the  mind,  and  lead  the 
heart  to  repose  in  God,  but  to  quicken  and  elevate  the 
sense  of  duty.  Conscience,  as  it  judges  and  acts  on 
all  things,  must  be  disciplined  and  trained  in  faith.     It 


216  LIBERAL    CHRISTIANITY. 

will  neither  give  nor  accept  a  lower  law  than  Christ's 
rule,  Be  ye  perfect.  This  of  itself  opens  an  unmeas- 
ured field  of  moral  growth  and  personal  obligation. 
And  as  in  the  single  heart  of  man,  so  in  the  wide  world 
of  man,  the  Christian  thought  of  excellence  must  gain 
and  grow.  With  even  and  inexorable  tread  that  moral 
idea  advances,  heralding  the  moral  action  that  shall 
surely  come  eventually  to  occupy  its  ground.  We 
cannot  escape,  any  more  in  the  wider  general  relations 
we  hold  to  other  men  and  the  world  at  large  than  in  the 
conduct  of  our  individual  life,  —  we  cannot  escape  the 
judgment  of  a  conscience  enlightened  by  the  progress  of 
Christian  truth.  The  old  coroner's  verdict,  "  Death  by 
the  judgment  of  God,"  does  not  abide  the  investigation 
of  modern  physiology,  which  pries  into  the  modes  and 
operations  of  organic  nature,  and  assumes  the  infringe- 
ment of  some  organic  law.  The  ancient  self-satisfied 
phraseology,  famine,  misery,  oppression,  crime,  by  the 
judgment  of  God,  does  not  abide  the  stern  scrutiny 
of  Christian  ethics,  which  investigates  the  operations  of 
man's  moral  nature,  and  assumes  the  infringement  of 
some  organic  social  law.  In  awful,  hollow  tones,  out 
of  the  wretchedness,  starvation,  and  bloodshed  that 
afflict  a  guilty  world,  does  the  word  of  Christian  truth 
come  sounding  to  our  ears.  In  former  times  men  forgot 
or  heeded  not  its  voice,  so  pleading.  They  cannot  so 
forget  or  slight  it  any  more.  What  has  once  come  in 
living  tones,  and  reached  the  public  conscience,  will 
echo  there  for  ever.  The  ground  which  Christian  fore- 
thought or  benevolence  has  once  come  to  occupy,  it 
never  surrenders. 

Terrible   questions,  as  some   may   think,    have   been 
already  put  to  the  mind  of  our  age.     Yet  no  question, 


LIBERAL    CHRISTIANITY.  217 

put  in  the  frankness  of  Christian  love,  is  half  so  terrible 
as  the  bald,  unquestioned  fact  of  public  sin,  —  half  so 
terrible  as  the  blank  and  drear  silence  that  formerly- 
brooded  over  the  desolation  caused  by  human  guilt  in 
its  giant  dimensions,  as  it  strode  over  and  ravaged  the 
bountiful,  glad  earth.  All  this  effort,  all  this  aim,  rather 
than  accomplishment,  of  the  earnest  Christian  idea  of 
our  time,  is  but  the  inevitable  result  of  the  existence  of 
Christianity  in  the  world.  It  is  but  the  mark  of  the  irre- 
sistible advance  of  the  tide  of  human  thought.  It  is 
but  the  very  prophetic  words  of  Christ,  of  the  Jewish 
prophet  centuries  before  his  day,  struggling  towards  ful- 
filment. "  The  Spirit  of  the  Lord  is  upon  me,  because 
he  hath  anointed  me  to  preach  the  gospel  to  the  poor  ; 
he  hath  sent  me  to  heal  the  broken-hearted,  to  preach 
deliverance  to  the  captives,  and  recovering  of  sight  to  the 
blind,  to  set  at  liberty  them  that  are  bruised  ;  to  preach 
the  acceptable  year  of  the  Lord."  God  be  thanked, 
that,  in  the  inevitable  march  of  human  thought,  guided 
and  inspired  by  Christianity,  some  men  have  already 
come  so  far  as  to  pray  and  strive  and  hope  for  a  more 
literal  fulfilment  of  his  words  than  any  but  the  sacred 
speaker  himself  dreamed  of  when  he  uttered  them  ! 

II.  Having  thus  briefly  and  rapidly  traced  what  to  my 
mind  is  included  in  the  system  of  Liberal  Christianity, 
—  namely,  the  primary  religious  truth,  or  foundation  of 
faith  in  God  and  Christ,  with  its  application  to  the 
spheres  of  religious  experience,  intellect,  and  personal  as 
w^ell  as  general  morality,  —  I  ask  your  attention  while 
we  look  back  for  a  moment  upon  the  ground  over  which 
we  have  passed. 

It  seems  to  me,  that,  frankly  accepting  the  principles 
which  have  been  laid  down,  we  stand  in  a  position  pecu- 
19 


218  LIBERAL    CHRISTIANITY. 

liarly  favorable  to  the  fulfilment  of  the  high  purpose  of 
such  a  faith.  Theologically  speaking,  we  have  often 
•  been  considered,  and  too  often  suffered  ourselves  to  be 
regarded,  as  standing  only  in  a  negative  position  ;  that  is 
to  say,  we  have  been  known  only  as  denying,  one  after 
another,  doctrines  insisted  on  as  absolutely  essential,  and 
by  some  held  very  sacred  and  dear,  among  other  sects 
of  Christians.  The  Trinity,  so  long  the  object  and  the 
symbol  of  the  chiefest  reverence  paid  to  any  thing,  by 
the  homage  of  the  world,  we  begin  by  sweeping  utterly 
away;  so  far  as  we  are  able,  upturning  every  step  of  the 
foundation  it  was  supposed  to  rest  on ;  taking  our  very 
name,  some  of  us,  from  our  unqualified  denial  of  it.  The 
Atonement,  corner-stone  of  so  many  fabrics  of  faith,  the 
strong  and  sure  repose  of  many  a  devout  heart,  the  key 
that  seemed  to  unriddle  the  great  mystery  of  man's  hfe 
and  God's  government,  —  this,  too,  we  assault,  refuse, 
and  do  our  best  to  overthrow.  From  the  obscure  yet 
venerated  dogmas  of  Election,  Free-grace,  Predestina- 
tion, Regeneration,  and  Spiritual  Influence,  we  strip  the 
veil  of  mystery,  seeking  to  reduce  them,  if  possible, 
within  the  range  of  human  philosophy  and  human  sci- 
ence. We  go  still  farther  ;  and,  passing  the  awful  shad- 
ows of  the  tomb,  strive  to  dispel  the  vague  terror  that 
hung  over  the  destiny  of  spirits  departed,  and  to  carry 
there  the  same  law  of  moral  and  spiritual  growth  which 
we  find  prevailing  here. 

With  a  bold  and  unsparing  hand  we  have  invaded  the 
time-hallowed  shrines  of  ancient  faith.  We  have  carried 
free  religious  inquiry  to  its  last  limits  ;  refusing  to  believe 
without  a  reason  rendered  why  and  how  ;  becoming 
Protestants  of  the  Protestants,  as  Paul  was  at  first  an 
Hebrew  of  the  Hebrews  ;   not   stopping,  some   of  us, 


LIBERAL    CHRISTIANITY.  219 

till,  to  the  scared  and  amazed  view  of  those  who  stood 
watching  us,  we  seemed  to  have  torn  down  the  last  bar- 
rier that  old  reverence  had  left  standing,  and  to  have 
compromised  the  very  integrity  of  our  faith  in  the  provi- 
dence of  God.  The  external  coverings  and  supports 
by  which  that  faith  was  once  held  in  and  sheltered  have 
fallen,  one  by  one,  before  the  attack  of  men's  restless  in- 
tellect. Verbal  Inspiration,  and  Prophecy,  and  Miracle 
have  been  successively  abandoned  by  some  minds,  as- 
serting that  they  had  no  need  of  such  defences  and  allies 
to  their  more  refined  and  spiritual  apprehension  of  truth. 
And  no  wonder,  considering  the  disjointed  and  chaotic 
state  of  religious  opinion  everywhere,  that  the  Roman 
Catholic  begins  to  ask.  What  do  you  Protestants  be- 
lieve ?  and  every  sect  asks  in  turn,  What  do  you  Uni- 
tarians believe  ? 

In  answer  to  this  question,  I  say,  without  the  smallest 
scruple  or  hesitation,  that  we  have  the  materials  for  a 
system  of  religious  faith  beyond  all  comparison  the  most 
rich,  complete,  broad,  lofty,  and  inspiring  that  the 
world  has  ever  known.  We  do  ourselves  WTong,  we 
do  wrong  to  the  cause  of  truth  and  liberal  thought,  when 
we  suffer  it  to  be  said  that  our  creed  is  mainly  negative, 
that  our  doctrines  are  made  up  of  the  denial  of  others' 
doctrines.  It  is  not  so.  Our  principles  of  belief,  if  we 
rightly  understand  them,  are  most  positive  and  explicit. 
The  whole  world  of  language,  the  whole  realm  of  human 
thought,  would  scarce  suffice  to  comprehend  our  simplest 
propositions,  together  with  the  infinity  of  results,  illus- 
trations, applications,  hopes,  and  motives  that  belong  to 
them.  If  we  understand  ourselves  in  our  controversy 
with  others'  theology,  we  are  only  trying  to  remove  the 
limitations  and  bounds  that  hamper,  belittle,  restrain,  the 


220  LIBERAL    CHRISTIANITY. 

free  movement  of  our  mind  towards  God.  It  is  not  that 
we  refuse  or  deny  the  spiritual  fact  contained,  for  in- 
stance, in  statements  of  the  Divinity  of  Christ,  the  great 
Redemption  and  ReconciHation  of  men's  souls,  the  awful 
Discipline  and  Retribution  that  attend  on  human  charac- 
ter ;  but  because  we  cannot  consent  to  be  limited  and 
confined  by  the  boundaries  rpen  have  drawn  about  these 
sacred  subjects,  reducing  them  within  grasp  and  com- 
pass of  the  subtile  understanding,  or  making  them  conven- 
ient tools  for  religious  machinery  and  spiritual  despotism. 
We  do  not  deny  the  interior  fact,  the  sacred  personal 
signification  of  religious  truth,  however  much  we  may 
wish  the  mind  emancipated  from  some  of  its  present 
forms. 

A  doctrinal  reformation,  or  religious  revolution,  has 
been  defined  as  the  falling  back  upon  the  experience  of 
the  soul,  and  making  the  personal  element  the  test  and 
the  prominent  part  in  our  religious  theory.  We  must 
have  faith  in  the  operations  of  man's  moral  and  religious 
nature.  We  must  have  that  primary  and  essential  faith 
in  the  human  soul.  As  stated  by  Des  Cartes,  it  made 
the  starting-point  of  modern  philosophy  ;  and  in  the  last 
analysis  it  must  form  the  resting-place  of  all  our  religious 
thought.  Without  it,  we  are  all  afloat  and  astray.  With- 
out it,  we  cannot  trust  a  single  intellectual  process,  or 
moral  conviction,  or  course  of  religious  argument ;  there 
is  no  reliance  anywhere.  Without  it,  all  the  institu- 
tions, and  creeds,  and  dogmas,  and  disciplines,  and  the- 
ologies, and  confessions  of  faith  that  can  possibly  be 
fabricated  are  but  so  much  clumsy  and  frail  machinery. 
We  may  contend,  if  we  choose,  like  the  Church  of  Rome 
(which  does  it  consistently),  that  our  hierarchy  is  Di- 


LIBERAL    CHRISTIANITY.  221 

vinely  appointed,  and  that  a  miraculous  virtue  resides 
in  ever^hallovved  rite,  and  symbolic  act,  and  priestly 
word  ;  but  on  any  other  than  this  absolute  and  high- 
handed assumption,  there  is  no  ultimate  reliance,  save  in 
the  integrity  of  the  soul  of  man,  under  the  control  of 
laws  appointed  in  its  constitution,  and  executed  under  the 
universal  providence  of  God. 

There  is  absolutely  no  middle  ground  between  these 
two.  Either  our  church  is  a  separate,  Divinely  estab- 
lished thing,  and  its  simplest  acts  are  miracles,  and  its 
simplest  v;ords  are  oracles  or  spells,  and  a  bound  utterly 
peculiar  and  not  to  be  crossed  sets  it  apart  from  every 
thing  human  and  profane  ;  or  else,  whatever  Divine  ele- 
ments of  truth  be  intermixed,  the  creed,  the  opinion,  the 
form,  the  external  rite  or  institution,  is  simply  human, 
and  depends,  not  on  any  special  sanctity  of  its  own,  but 
on  the  integrity  and  good  faith  of  the  human  hands  that 
sustain  it,  the  human  minds  that  give  credence  to  it,  the 
human  souls  whose  conscious  want  it  satisfies. 

Of  these  two  extreme  positions,  we  have  chosen  the 
latter  for  our  own  :  not  necessarily  cutting  ourselves  ofF 
from  the  forms  of  faith  or  worship,  or  the  particular 
opinions  either,  that  belong  to  other  times  and  churches  ; 
but  accepting  what  we  do  accept,  and  denying  what  we 
do  deny,  on  grounds  utterly  different  from  those  urged 
by  church  authority  or  priestly  discipline.  Our  Chris- 
tianity we  take  because  it  comes  home  to  our  own  expe- 
rience ;  and  we  take  it  in  such  form  as  comes  home  to 
our  own  experience.  It  is  the  great  field  of  man's  spir- 
itual history  and  life  from  which  we  gather  the  materials 
to  build  the  structure  of  our  faith.  Scripture  may  give 
the  key,  the  hfe  of  Christ  may  give  the  pattern,  his  death 
may  give  the  solemn  motive,  his  promise  may  give  the 
19* 


222  LIBERAL    CHRISTIANITY. 

firm  assurance,  with  which  we  look  forward  to  eternity, 
and  his  resurrection,  our  confiding  and  triumphant  hope. 
But  all  these  do  not  give  the  lines  and  limits  ;  they  do 
not  mark  the  boundaries  of  the  active  intellect  ;  they  do 
not  show  where  the  mind's  range  and  expansiveness  shall 
find  a  check.  But  rather  they  give  strength  and  im- 
pulse to  the  free  motion  of  the  mind.  They  give  en- 
couragement and  vigor  to 

"  This  intellectual  being, 
These  thoughts  that  wander  through  eternity." 

They  arm  us  with  new  instruments,  and  put  us  on  a  nev^r 
course,  and  give  a  new  spirit  to  enlighten  us,  in  our  dis- 
covery of  truth.  So  let  us  welcome  the  free  and  in- 
spiring, and  not  slavish,  reliance  upon  the  Oracles  of 
Truth. 

The  chief  thing  to  be  taken  note  of,  especially  in 
making  application  of  the  principles  before  asserted,  is, 
that  there  are  very  various  types  of  intellectual  and  re- 
hgious  character.  Each  one  has  his  own  ;  and  it  is  by 
being  strictly  faithful  to  his  own  that  each  one  is  to  find 
satisfaction.  "  There  are  divershies  of  gifts,  but  the 
same  spirit  ;  and  there  are  difl^erences  of  administra- 
tions, but  the  same  Lord  ;  and  there  are  diversities  of 
operations,  but  it  is  the  same  God  which  worketh  all  in 
all."  We  have  no  reason  to  be  afraid  of  the  largest 
liberty  and  the  extremest  diversity.  The  only  real 
cause  for  fear  is  lest  the  efforts  made  to  hamper  this 
liberty,  to  render  uniform  this  diversity,  should  result  in 
distortion  and  disease  of  the  religious  sentiment,  or  else 
in  giving  rise  to  strange  and  fantastic  forms  of  false,  im- 
aginary independence.  What  are  the  nations  where  re- 
ligion seems  to  be  at  the  lowest  ebb  ?     Precisely  the 


LIBERAL    CHRISTIANITY.  223 

ones  where  enthusiasm  heretofore  has  been  most  ram- 
pant, where  disciphne  has  been  most  intolerant,  where 
priesthoods  have  exercised  strictest  sway  over  the  op- 
erations of  intellect  and  modes  of  worship,  and  where 
the  strong  hand  of  civil  power  has  most  relentlessly 
enforced  decrees  dictated  by  the  strong  will  of  hierarch- 
ical rule. 

We  need  no  such  ungenerous  and  cowardly  methods 
to  sustain  our  religious  faith,  no  such  controlling  guid- 
ance in  our  search  for  Christian  truth.  First  for  the 
faith.  It  springs  up,  spontaneous  and  irrepressible,  in 
the  human  soul.  There  never  was  a  period,  probably 
there  never  was  a  man,  of  tolerably  free  and  healthy 
activity  of  intellect,  that  did  not  show  too  abundant 
signs  of  some  type  of  religion.  So  God  has  consti- 
tuted our  spiritual  nature.  The  utmost  that  could  pos- 
sibly be  accomplished,  in  the  most  radical  and  sweeping 
revolution  we  can  in  any  w^ay  conceive,  would  be  a 
change  analogous  to  that  which  geologists  tell  us  has 
once  and  again  and  a  hundred  times  laid  waste  the  fair 
and  teeming  surface  of  the  earth.  The  inexhaustible 
fertility  of  nature  triumphs  over  the  smouldering  and 
shapeless  chaos.  New  forms  of  bird  and  beast  and 
creeping  thing,  new  and  statelier  growth  of  forest  and 
grove,  new  wealth  and  more  abundant  beauty,  are 
the  result  that  comes  to  pass  in  the  bounteous  provi- 
dence of  God.  And  so  in  the  processes  of  human 
thought.  Far  be  it  from  any  of  us  to  desire  a  wild  cru- 
sade against  every  form  of  opinion,  —  to  cut  loose  from 
all  the  moorings  and  anchorage  of  the  past,  —  to  engage 
in  fanatic  devastation  of  all  that  men  count  holy.  But 
as  a  point  of  religious  faith  we  hold  it  sure,  and  the  past 
history  of  man  confirms  in  us  the  belief,  that  the  destruc- 


224  LIBERAL    CHUISTIANITY. 

tion  of  one  mode  or  fabric  of  thought  is  but  to  prepare 
for  another  ;  that  nothing  whatever  can  permanently 
derange  or  stop  the  progress  appointed  by  God  to  the 
human  mind  ;  that  though  the  night  of  seeming  unbelief 
be  long  and  dark  to  us,  yet  in  the  eye  of  Him  to  whom 
"  a  thousand  years  are  but  as  yesterday  when  it  is  past, 
and  as  a  watch  in  the  night,"  the  soul  lives,  the  heart 
beats,  the  dawn  of  a  brighter  day  is  coming,  humanity  is 
preparing  a  richer  and  better  offering  to  lay  hereafter 
at  the  footstool  of  the  Universal  Father. 

When  the  Son  of  Man  cometh,  shall  he  find  faith  on 
the  earth  ?  Yes  !  Faith  is  the  imperishable,  the  ever- 
lasting possession  of  the  human  heart,  —  the  Divinely 
established  bond  which  unites  man's  highest  thought, 
his  truest  freedom,  his  most  exalted  moral  heroism,  with 
that  God  whose  fulness  is  the  source  of  all.  The  forms 
of  it  may  vary  ;  its  essence  remains  the  same.  As.  it 
was  in  the  beginning,  when  in  the  childhood  of  the  hu- 
man race  men  looked  out  on  the  young  earth  teeming 
with  beauty,  and  with  awe-struck  gaze  beheld  the  naked 
heaven,  "  the  inverted  hand  of  God  "  above  them,  —  as 
it  was  in  times  of  fierce  commotion  and  disaster,  when  the 
only  solace  w^as  in  the  childlike  confidence  with  which 
the  martyr's  pious  heart  could  whisper  "  My  Father  !  " 
—  as  it  was  in  the  age  of  implicit  and  unquestioning  ado- 
ration, when  painting,  and  poetry,  and  loftiest  cathedral 
pinnacle  or  vault,  and  the  solemn  strains  of  the  chanted 
mass,  were  but  the  impassioned  utterance  of  the  upward- 
striving  soul  ;  —  so  is  it  now,  after  so  many  a  weary 
struggle  after  truth,  after  so  many  veils  removed,  one 
by  one,  from  Nature's  mysteries, —  now,  when  so  many 
forms,  once  hallowed,  are  looked  on  but  as  unmeaning 
shapes,  husks  with  the  kernel  gone, — now,  after  so  many 


LIBERAL    CHRISTIANITY.  225 

a  battle  for  the  right,  and  the  slow  evolution  of  princi- 
ples of  justice  and  abstract  moral  truth,  taking  now  their 
stand  as  the  criterion  by  which  men's  conduct  and  their 
institutions  too  must  be  judged,  —  now  and  for  ever 
does  man's  religious  faith  remain  the  same.  Vears  can- 
not wear  it  down.  Revolutions  of  all  things  else  can- 
not shake  its  unalterable  consistency.  That  is  the 
Christian  faith  above  suspicion,  reproach,  or  fear  ;  the 
league  between  man  and  God  ;  the  fast  possession  of 
the  life  ;  the  choice  treasure  of  immortality  ! 

And  lastly,  the  materials  and  illustrations  by  which 
we  are  to  realize  this  faith.  They  are  provided  in  rich 
abundance  ;  they  lie  strewn  thick  everywhere.  What- 
ever God  hath  writ  in  the  deep  heaven  above  us,  spark- 
ling in  starry  splendor,  as  its  glittering  constellations  and 
dusky  nebulae  tell  us  of  the  enormous  scale  on  which  he 
hath  lavished  his  skill  and  power  ;  whatever  we  see  on 
the  diversified  and  fertile  surface  of  the  earth,  as  its 
hill-sides  teem  with  vegetation,  and  its  forests  wear  their 
garb  of  varied  green,  and  its  flowers  bloom  in  profuse, 
countless  variety,  and  its  mountain-ranges  lift  their  eter- 
nal peaks  into  the  dark  sky,  rosy  with  dawn  or  evening 
twilight,  or  flashing  like  a  kindled  altar  at  the  approach 
of  day  ;  whatever  we  hear  in  the  perpetual  melody  of 
nature,  in  the  wood-bird's  song,  or  the  roar  of  waterfall, 
or  whispering  wind  through  forest  aisles,  or  dash  of  riv- 
ulet, or  ocean's  stormy  voice,  or  peal  of  thunder  from 
rolling  and  gusty  clouds  ;  whatever  we  read  "  in  the 
marvellous  heart  of  man,  that  strange  and  mystic  scroll," 
bearing  record  of  past  joys  and  pains  and  present  hope, 
bounding  to  the  voice  of  love,  trembling  beneath  the 
flood  of  gladness  or  fear,  quick  to  feel  the  burden  of 
life's  care,  warm  at  the  breath  of  sympathy,  and  yearn- 


226  LIBERAL    CHRISTIANITY. 

ing  wistfully  towards  the  unfathomable  secrets  of  futu- 
rity ;  whatever  we  may  find,  too,  in  the  deeper  soul  of 
man,  obscurely  yet  solemnly  conscious  of  an  impending 
eternity  of  duration,  swelling  with  hopes  not  earthly, 
sustained  by  faith  direct  from  heaven,  shrinking  before 
the  awful  presence  of  holiness,  yet  inspired  by  its  invig- 
orating touch,  capable  of  an  angel's  bliss  or  a  demon's 
woe;  —  all,  all  are  the  source  and  illustration  of  .our 
faith  ;  from  all  we  would  gather  wisdom  ;  to  all  we 
would  listen  reverently,  as  to  the  very  voice  of  God. 
The  word  that  Christ  hath  spoken  is  echoed  back  alike 
from  nature,  and  history,  and  the  human  soul. 

Is  it  asked  where  shall  we  find  material  for  our  relig- 
ious belief,  now  that  we  have  lost  our  confidence  in  the 
literal  and  infallible  inspiration  of  the  record  which  con- 
tains the  lives  and  thoughts  of  so  many  good  and  holy 
men,  —  which  embodies  to  us,  too,  the  divine  words  and 
diviner  life  of  the  Saviour  of  the  world  ?  Behold,  we 
answer,  the  universe  is  our  school,  and  God  is  our 
teacher,  and  human  life  is  our  interpreter.  We  refuse 
not  to  others  the  form  they  find  good  for  themselves. 
We  deny  not  to  others  the  more  spiritual  faith  they 
seek,  —  the  reality  of  their  heart's  experience,  the  meas- 
ure of  truth  contained  in  their  more  airy  and  imaginative 
forms  of  thought.  But  for  ourselves  we  accept  no 
pledges,  and  bind  ourselves  to  no  bonds.  Let  our 
spirit  be  earnest,  our  intention  sincere,  we  trust  the  good 
God,  to  whom  alone  we  are  accountable.  Free  and 
strong  as  the  wing  of  the  bird  of  heaven,  reverent  and 
gentle  as  the  spirit  of  a  child  at  prayer,  should  be  the 
action  of  our  mind  when  following  the  infinite  topics  of 
thought  suggested  as  the  subject-matter  of  our  faith. 
Diversities  of  operations   there   will   be  and   must  be. 


LIBERAL    CHRISTIANITY.  227 

God  hath  ordained  it  so.  He  never  meant  we  should 
be  uniformed  and  liveried  in  our  service  of  truth. 
Rather  does  he  bid  welcome  to  every  free  and  earnest 
mind,  promising  to  redeem  it  in  his  own  good  time 
from  sin*  and  error,  that  wandering  man  may  be  restored 
to  those  "  everlasting  habitations,"  where  He  shall  be 
all  in  all. 


THE    END. 


CROSBY    &    NICHOLS  S     PUBLICATIONS,  S 

SERMONS  ON  CHRISTIAN  COMMUNION.  Designed  to 
promote  the  Culture  of  the  Religious  Affections.  Edited  by 
Rev.  T.  R.  Sullivan.     12mo.     pp.  403.     Price,  $  1.00. 

This  work  is  not  confined  to  the  subject  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  but  "forms 
a  series  of  practical  discourses  of  the  persuasive  kind,  relating  to  repentance, 
or  the  duly  of  commencing  the  Christian  course,  —  to  edification,  or  the  en- 
couragements to  progressive  Christian  improvement,  —  and  to  the  eucharistic 
service,  as  affording  exercise  for  all  the  grateful  and  devout  affections  of  the 
heart  in  every  stage  of  its  subjection  to  Christian  discipline."  —  Pre/ace. 

The  following  is  a  list  of  the  writers  :  — 

Rev.  G.  E.  ElliS;  Charlestown. 

"  G.  Putnam,  D.  D.,  Roxbury. 

"  J.  H.  MoRiso.v,  Milton. 

"  A.  Young,  D.  D.,  Boston. 

"  E.  B.  Hall,  D.  D..  Providence. 

"  S.  G.  BuLFiNCH,  Nashua. 

"  O.  Dewey,  D.  D..  New  Y'ork. 

"  S.  Osgood,  Providence. 

"  A.  Hill,  Worcester. 

"  W.  H.  FuRNEss,  D.D., Philadelphia. 

"  N.  L.  Frothingham,  D.D.,  Boston. 

"  E.  Peabody,  Boston. 

"      S.  K.  LOTHKOP,      " 

*'     C.  A.  Bartol,      " 

"    A.  B.  MuzzET,  Cambridge. 


Rev.  H.  A.  INIiLES,  Lowell. 

"  F.  Parkman,  D.  D.,  Boston. 

"  S.  JuDD,  Augusta. 

"  F.  D.  Huntington,  Boston. 

"  C.  T.  Brooks,  Newport. 

"  N.  Hall,  Dorchester. 

"  J.  I  T.  Coolidge,  Boston. 

"  G.  W.  Briggs,  Plymouth. 

"  A.  A.  LivsRMORE,  Keene. 

"  J.  Whitman,  Lexington. 

"  J.  W.  Thompson,  Salem. 

•*  H.  W.  BELLowi^  New  York. 

«♦  E.  S.  Gannett,  D.  D.,  Boston. 

"  A.  P.  Peabody.  Portsmouth. 

"  J.  Walker,  D  D.,  Cambridge. 

"  C,  RoBBiNS,  Boston. 

"The  design  of  the  work  is  admirable,  and  we  doubt  not  it  is  admirably 
executed,  and  will  promote  the  best  interests  of  our  churches.  We  chanced  to 
open  at  Sermon  XVUI.,  on  Christian  Education,  and  were  pleased  to  see  the 
idea  of  Dr.  Bushnell's  celebrated  book  on  '  Christian  Nurture '  illustrated  and 
urged  in  a  sermon  by  Dr.  Putnam,  preached  tvvo  years  before  Dr.  Bushnell's 
book  made  its  appearance." —  Christian  Register. 

"  The  tone  of  these  sermons,  their  living  interest,  their  unpremeditated  vari- 
ety in  unity,  fit  them  well  for  this  purpose, —  close  personal  influence  on  poinds 
of  widely  differing  views,  united  in  the  one  great  aim  of  a  Christian  life.  We 
shall  probably  take  an  early  opportunity  of  making  some  selections." —  L  iris- 
tian  Inquirer. 

"We  think  the  volume  is  upon  the  whole  one  of  the  best  volumes  of  dis- 
courses ever  issued  from  the  American  press."  —  Boston  Daily  Atlas. 

THE  GOSPEL  NARRATIVES,  their  Origin,  Peculiarities, 
and  Transmission.  By  Rev.  Henry  A.  Miles.  16mo. 
pp.  174.     Price,  50  cents. 

This  work  is  designed  for  families  and  Sunday  Schools,  and  contains  a  com- 
parison of  each  Gospel  with  the  education,  life,  and  character  of  its  author, 
and  with  the  purpose  which  he  had  in  view  in  its  composition  ;  as  also  an  ac- 
count of  the  transmission  of  the  Gospels  down  to  our  time,  and  the  evidence 
of  their  uncorrupted  preservation. 

"  This  volume  by  Mr.  Miles  has  substantial  value.  It  is  by  the  circulation 
and  use  of  such  books  that  Christian  knowledge  is  to  be  extended,  and  Chris- 
tian faith  confirmed.  By  a  thorough  study  even  of  this  small  work  in  child- 
hood, many  persons  might  have  the  satisfaction  of  carrying  through  life  a  clear 
and  connected  idea  of  the  biographies  of  Jesus,  and  of  the  nature  of  the  exter- 
nal evidence  in  their  favor,  instead  of  remaining  in  vague  uncertainty  on  the 
whole  subject.  Bringing  into  a  simple  and  popular  form,  and  small  compass, 
information  not  hitherto  accessible,  except  to  a  limited  number  of  persons,  the 
'  Gospel  Narratives '  will  be  interesting  to  the  general  reader,  whether  youthful 
or  adult.  It  must,  without  doubt,  be  introduced  in  all  our  Sunday  Schools, 
and  will  rank  among  the  most  important  manuals." 


4  CR09BY    &    NICHOLS  S     PUBLICATIONS. 

NAOMI ;  or  Boston  Two  Hundred  Years  Ago.  A  Tale  of  the 
Quaker  Persecution  in  New  England.  By  Eliza  Buckmin- 
STER  Lee,  Autlior  of  "  The  Life  of  Jean  Paul."  Second  Edi- 
tion.    12mo.     pp.  324.     Price,  75  cents. 

The  first  edition  of  this  popular  booic  was  exhausted  within  a  month  after  its 
publication. 

"  Mrs.  Lee  has  given  the  public  a  most  agreeable  book.  Her  style  is  ele- 
vated and  earnest.  Her  sentiments,  of  the  pure  and  the  true.  The  characters 
are  well  conceived,  and  are  presented  each  in  strong  individuality,  and  with 
such  apparent  truthfulness  as  almost  to  leave  us  in  doubt  whether  they  are  '  be- 
ings of  the  mind,'  or  were  real  men  and  women  who  bore  the  parts  she  assigns 
them  in  those  dark  tragedies  that  stained  this  '  fair  heritage  of  freedom  '  in  the 
early  days  of  Massachusetts."  —  Worcester  Palladium. 

"  We  have  been  exceedingly  interested  in  this  book,  and  recommend  it  as 
a  beautiful  picture  of  female  piety  and  quiet  heroism,  set  in  a  frame  of  history 
and  tradition,  that  cannot  fail  to  please  every  one  connected,  however  remotely, 
with  the  land  of  the  Puritans.  The  accomplished  author  of  '  The  Life  of  Jean 
Paul '  has  produced  an  American  novel  which  we  should  like  to  see  followed  by 
others  illustrative  of  the  facts  and  manners  of  the  olden  time."  —  Christian 
Inquirer. 

THE  MARRIAGE  OFFERING.  Designed  #s  a  Gift  to  the 
Newly-married.  Edited  by  Rev.  A.  A.  Livermore.  16mo. 
pp.  215.     Price,  50  cents. 

"  It  was  a  happy  thought  that  suggested  such  a  volume.  We  were  not  aware 
before  that  there  was  so  much  and  so  various  Christian  literature  on  tfte  sub- 
ject." —  Christian.  Register. 

MARTYRIA  ;  a  Legend,  wherein  are  contained  Homilies,  Con- 
versations, and  Incidents  of  the  Reign  of  Edward  the  Sixth. 
Written  by  William  Mountford,  Clerk.  With  an  Introduc- 
tion to  the  American  Edition,  by  Rev.  F.  D.  Huntington. 
16mo.    pp.  348.     Price,  75  cents. 

"The  charm  of  the  book  lies  in  the  elevated  tone  of  thought  and  moral  sen- 
timent which  pervades  it.  You  feel,  on  closing  the  volume,  as  if  leaving  some 
ancient  cathedral,  where  your  soul  had  been  mingling  with  ascending  anthems 
and  prayers.  There  is  scarcely  a  page  which  does  not  contain  some  fine  strain 
of  thought  or  sentiment,  over  which  you  shut  the  book  that  you  may  pause 
and  meditate. 

"  We  recommend  the  volume  to  our  readers,  with  the  assurance  that  they 
will  find  few  works  in  the  current  literature  of  the  day  so  well  worth  perusal." 
—  Christian  Register. 

"  This  is  really  an  original  book.  We  have  seen  nothing  for  a  long  time 
more  fresh  or  true.  The  writer  has  succeeded  wonderfully,  in  taking  himself 
and  his  readers  into  the  heart  of  the  age  he  describes.  What  is  more,  he  has 
uttered  words  and  thoughts  which  stir  up  the  deep  places  of  the  soul.  Let 
those  read  who  wish  to  commune  with  the  true  and  unpretending  martyr-spirit, 
the  spread  of  faith  and  endurance,  courage,  self-denial,  forgiveness,  prayer. 

"  Of  all  the  treatises  we  have  ever  read  on  marriage,  we  have  seen  none  so 
good  as  one  here  called  a  '  Marriage  Sermon';  not  that  we  would  ask  any 
couple  to  hear  it  all  on  their  marriage  day,  but  we  commend  it  to  all  who  are 
married,  or  intend  to  be.    The  whole  book  is  precious."  —  Providence  Journal. 

"  There  are  few  religious  books  which  breathe  a  finer  spirit  than  this  singu- 
lar volume.  The  author's  mind  seems  to  have  meditated  deeply  on  the  awful 
realities  of  life.  In  the  thoughtful  flow  of  his  periods,  and  the  grave,  earnest 
eloquence  of  particular  passages,  we  are  sometimes  reminded  of  the  Old  English 
prose-writers.  The  work  is  a  '  curiosity  '  of  literature,  well  worth  an  attentive 
perusal." —  Graham's  Magazine. 


CROSBY    &    NICHOLS  S     PUBLICATIONS.  5 

A  TRANSLATION  OF  PAUL'S  EPISTLE  TO  THE 
ROMANS,  with  an  Introduction  and  Notes.  By  William 
A.  Whitwell,  Minister  of  the  Congregational  Society  in 
Wilton,  N.  H.     l6mo.     pp.  116.     Price,  50  cents. 

"We  would  express  a  high  opinion  of  the  book,  and  can  assure  the  Chris- 
tian reader  who  will  compare  it  carefully  with  our  common  version,  that  he 
will  rise  up  from  the  joint  perusal  of  the  two  with  a  belter  understanding  of 
Paul  than  he  had  before."  —  Christian  Register. 

CHRISTIANITY  THE  DELIVERANCE  OF  THE  SOUL 
AND  ITS  LIFE.  By  William  Mountford.  With  an  In- 
troduction by  Rev.  F.  D.  Huntington.  16mo.  pp.  118. 
Price,  37^  cents. 

"  Mr.  Mountford  is  full  of  warm  religious  feeling.  He  brings  religion  home 
to  the  heart,  and  applies  it  as  the  guide  of  the  life."  —  London  Inquirer. 

SELF-FORMATION ;  or  the  History  of  an  Individual  Mind  : 
Intended  as  a  Guide  for  the  Intellect  through  Difficulties  to 
Success.  By  a  Fellow  of  a  College.  12mo.  pp.  504.  Price, 
$1.00. 

"The  publishers  have  done  good  service  by  bringing  forward  an  American 
edition  of  this  work.  It  may  be  most  unreservedly  recommended,  especially  to 
the  young."  —  Daily  Advertiser. 

•'  Your  gift  of  '  Self-Formation '  is  truly  a  welcome  one,  and  I  am  greatly 
obliged  to  you  for  it.  It  is  a  work  of  quite  original  character,  and  I  esteem  it 
(in  common  with  all  I  know  of,  who  have  read  it)  as  possessed  of  very  rare 
merit.  I  am  glad,  for  the  cause  of  good  education  and  sound  principle,  that 
you  have  republished  it,  and  I  wish  every  young  man  and  woman  in  the  com- 
munity might  be  induced  to  read  it  carefully.  It  is  several  years  since  I  looked 
into  it  in  the  English  edition,  — but  I  yet  retain  a  vivid  impression  of  the  great 
delight  it  afforded  me,  and  I  shall  gladly  avail  of  the  opportunity  of  renewing 
it."  — Extract  from  a  Letter. 

"This  is  emphatically  a  good  book,  which  may  be  read  with  profit  by  all 
classes,  but  more  especially  by  young  men,  to  whose  wants  it  is  admirably 
adapted.  The  American  editor  is  no  doubt  right  in  saying,  that  it  is  almost 
without  a  question  the  most  valuable  and  useful  work  on  self  education  that 
has  appeared  in  our  own,  if  not  in  any  other  language."  —  Netc  YorkTribune. 

THOUGHTS  ON  MORAL  AND  SPIRITUAL  CULTURE. 
By  Rev.  Robert  C.  Waterston.  Second  Edition,  revised. 
Ibmo.     pp.  302.     Price,  62.^  cents. 

This  book  has  met  with  a  ready  sale  in  this  country,  and  has  been  republished 
in  England.  A  London  periodical,  in  reviewing  it,  says:  —  "We  will  ven- 
ture to  predict  that  it  will  soon  lake  its  place  on  the  shelves  of  our  religious 
libraries,  beside  Ware  '  On  the  Christian  Character,'  Greenwood's  '  Lives  of  the 
Apostles,'  and  other  works  to  which  we  might  refer  as  standard  publications, 
the  value  of  which  is  not  likely  to  be  diminished  by  the  lapse  of  lime  or  the 
caprices  of  fashion." 

"  The  sense  of  duty  in  parents  and  teachers  may  be  strengthened  and  elevated 
by  contemplating  the  high  standard  which  is  here  held  up  to  them.  The  stvle 
has  the  great  merit  of  being  an  earnest  one,  and  there  are  many  passages  which 
rise  into  genuine  eloquence  and  the  glow  of  poetry."  —  N.  A.  Review. 

"  The  Lecture  '  On  the  Best  Means  of  exerting  a  Moral  and  Spiritual  Influence 
in  Schools,'  no  teacher,  male  or  female,  possessed  of  any  of  the  germs  of  im- 
provement, can  read  without  benefit."  — JETon.  Horace  Mann,  Secretary  of  the 
Board  of  Education. 


6  CROSBY    &    NICHOLS  S     PUBLICATIONS. 

DOMESTIC  WORSHIP.  By  William  H.  Furness,  Pastor 
of  the  First  Congregational  Unitarian  Church  in  Philadelphia 
Third  Edition.     12mo.    pp.  272.     Price,  75  cents. 

♦'  We  are  glad  to  see  this  book.  It  is  a  work  of  great  and  peculiar  excellence. 
It  is  not  a  compilation  from  other  books  of  devotion ;  nor  is  it  made  up  of 
conventional  phrases  and  Scripture  quotations,  which  have  been  so  long  em- 
ployed as  the  language  of  prayer,  that  they  are  repeated  without  thought  and 
without  feeling.  It  is  admirably  adapted  to  the  purpose  for  which  it  was  writ- 
ten ;  and  it  may  be  read  again  and  again  with  great  interest  and  profit  by  any 
one,  who  desires  to  enrich  his  mind  with  the  purest  sentiments  of  devotion, 
and  with  the  language  in  which  it  finds  its  best  expression.  Here  we  have  the 
genuine  utterances  of  religious  sensibility,  —  fresh,  natural,  and  original,  aa 
they  come  from  a  mind  of  singular  fertility  and  beauty,  and  a  heart  overflow- 
ing with  love  to  God  and  love  to  man.     They  seem  not  like  prayers  made  with 

hands,  to  be  printed  in  a  book,  but  real  praying,  full  of  spirit  and  life 

So  remarkable  is  their  tone  of  reality  and  genuineness,  that  we  cannot  bring 
ourselves  to  regard  them  as  compositions  written  for  a  purpose,  but  rather  as 
the  actual  utterances  of  a  pure  and  elevated  soul  in  reverent  and  immediate 
communion  with  the  Infinite  Father." —  Christian  Examiner. 

LAYS  FOR  THE  SABBATH.  A  Collection  of  Religious 
Poetry.  Compiled  by  Emily  Taylor.  Revised,  with  Addi- 
tions, by  John  Pierpont.     16mo.    pp.  288.     Price,  75  cents. 

"  It  is  simple  and  unpretending  ;  and  though  some  of  the  pieces  are  probably 
familiar  to  most  readers,  they  all  breathe  a  pure  and  elevated  spirit,  and  here 
and  there  is  an  exquisite  effusion  of  genius,  which  answers  to  the  holiest  wants 
of  the  soul. 

"Not  only  great  pleasure  may  be  derived  from  such  a  volume,  but  lasting 
and  useful  impressions.  Many  are  keenly  alive  to  the  harmony  of  verse  and 
the  fresh  outbursts  of  poetic  feeling,  who  would  pore  with  delight  over  such  a 
volume,  and  many  might  thus  be  won  to  high  thought  and  serious  reflection." 

—  Christian  Examiner. 

THE  YOUNG  MAIDEN.  Seventh  Edition.  By  Rev.  A.  B. 
MuzzEY,  Author  of  "  The  Young  Man's  Friend,"  "Sunday 
School  Guide,"  etc.,  etc.     IGmo.     pp.  264.     Price,  62^  cents. 

Contents.  —  The  Capacities  of  Woman  ;  Female  Influence ;  Female  Educa- 
tion ;  Home;  Society;  Love;  Single  Life;  Reasons  for  Marriage  ;  Conditions 
of  True  Marriage;  Society  of  Young  Men;  First  Love;  Conduct  during  En- 
gagement ;  Trials  of  Woman  and  her  Solace  ;  Encouragements. 

"  The  sentiments  and  principles  enforced  in  this  book  may  be  safely  com- 
mended to  the  attention  of  women  of  all  ranks.  Its  purpose  is  excellent 
throughout ;  and  as  it  is  everywhere  governed  by  a  just  and  amiable  spirit,  we 
believe  it  is  calculated  to  do  much  good."  —  London  Atlas, 

"  A  little  work,  well  worthy,  from  its  good  sense  and  good  feeling,  to  be 
a  permanent  and  favorite  monitor  to  our  fair  countrywomen."  —  Morning 
Herald, 

A  HISTORY  OF  SUNDAY  SCHOOLS  a^d  of  Religious  Edu- 
cation, from  the  Earliest  Times.  By  Lewis  G.  Pray.  Embel- 
lished with  two  Engravings.    16mo.    pp.270.    Price,  62^  cents. 

"  The  author  has  been  for  a  long  period  engaged  in  the  cause  of  which  he 
has  now  become  the  historian;  and  if  ardor,  perseverance,  and  faithfulness  in 
that  service  qualify  him  to  write  its  history,  we  know  of  no  one  to  whom  it 
could  have  been  more  properly  confided."  —  Portsmouth  Journal. 

"  A  volume  of  great  interest  to  all  who  have  at  heart  the  subject  discussed  " 

—  Literary  Woj-ld, 


1 


iililiil 


DATE  DUE 

'^•EBr^i 

1 

ilMi|||iij^> 

i^assg^^ 

' 

CAVLONO 

